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

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

TORT — NEGLIGENCE — MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE — A MISSED LIFELINE: COURT HOLDS MEDICAL TEAM LIABLE FOR BRAIN DAMAGE IN HIGH-RISK PREGNANCY CASE

A recent High Court ruling involved a plaintiff who suffered severe brain damage after an emergency caesarean section at 33 weeks of pregnancy due to alleged medical negligence. The court examined whether the medical team breached their duty of care by failing to properly monitor the patient, resulting in oxygen deprivation and irreversible damage. The defendants, including doctors and nurses, were found liable for not acting on clear warning signs, leading to significant damages awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and mental disabilities.

Read More »

NAVIGATING LIABILITY: THE UNSEAWORTHINESS OF THE FJORD WIND AND ITS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES

The Court of Appeal ruled in The Fjord Wind case that the vessel was unseaworthy at the time of departure from Rosario on 30.06.1990, due to known issues with the crankpin bearings that had not been adequately addressed. This unseaworthiness led to a main engine failure shortly after departure, necessitating the transhipment of cargo and incurring additional costs.

The court found the shipowners liable for damages, emphasizing their failure to exercise due diligence in maintaining the vessel’s seaworthiness. The ruling underscores the critical importance of thorough inspections and repairs in maritime operations, highlighting the legal responsibilities of shipowners to prevent unseaworthiness and related liabilities.

Read More »

STRATA MANAGEMENT – COMMON PROPERTY CONUNDRUM: CENTRALIZED AC COSTS AND THE STRATA MANAGEMENT DEBATE

In a recent legal dispute, the classification of centralized air conditioning facilities (CACF) as common property has come under scrutiny. The Plaintiff, a parcel owner in Tower A of Menara UOA Bangsar, challenged the Management Body’s use of maintenance funds for the upkeep of CACF, which primarily benefits parcels in Tower B. The court is likely to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim, reinforcing the principle that as long as CACF serves two or more occupiers, it is deemed common property, thus falling under the Management Body’s purview without requiring reimbursement from individual parcel owners.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us