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

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us