Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

1. Illustrative scenario:

X was born to parents who had a Chinese customary marriage that was not registered. When X’s father died intestate, he left behind his parents and cousins. X was told he was illegitimate because his parents’ marriage was not legally registered.

The key issue is whether a child born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘the LRMDA’) can inherit from their father’s estate under the Distribution Act 1958 (‘the DA’).

2. Laws & Legal Principles:

  • The DA 1958 governs the distribution of estates for individuals who die intestate (without a will).
  • Section 6 of the DA 1958 outlines the order of succession for intestate estates.
  • The definitions of ‘child’ and ‘issue’ are provided in Section 3 of the DA 1958: –
  • ‘Child’ refers to a legitimate child, and in cases where the deceased was permitted multiple wives, it includes children from all such wives, but not adopted children (except under the Adoption Act 1952).
  • ‘Issue’ includes children and descendants of deceased children.
  • The term ‘issue’ indicates bloodline descendants, regardless of their legitimacy. Thus, anyone with a genetic or blood connection to the deceased is entitled to inherit.
  • The DA 1958 does not limit inheritance to legitimate children only.
  • Applying these principles to the scenario, X qualifies as ‘issue’ under the DA 1958. Therefore, he is entitled to inherit from his father’s estate despite any questions of legitimacy.

Reference Cases:

Tan Kah Fatt & Anor v. Tan Ying [2023] 2 MLJ 583

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us