Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – ADULTERY AND MAINTENANCE

Adultery is a legal ground for divorce. However, complication arises in proving adultery. This legal update covers proof and effect when adultery is proven as well as maintenance of wife and children.
How is adultery proven?
  • In law, adultery has to be proven on the balance of probabilities. Adultery is not a crime in Malaysia. You don’t have to prove adultery beyond reasonable doubt. However, due to the serious nature of the allegation, the courts have consistently required high degree of probability as proof.
  • The easiest way to prove adultery is by engaging private investigator. However, it is of crucial importance to pay attention to avoid being scammed by fake private investigators.
  • Private investigators can be called to give evidence in court and the report of their surveillance. Normally, these reports would contain photographs and videos of respondent and co-respondent co-habiting together. Circumstantial evidence of adultery suffices. There is no need to produce evidence of “living in adultery”. Circumstantial evidence of act of voluntary sexual intercourse is enough.
  • Next, it must also be proved that the adultery is the cause of the breakdown of marriage. This is where the other party can produce evidence to show that the marriage had crumbled long before adultery.
What happened after adultery is proven?
  • Besides being a legal ground for divorce i.e. breakdown of marriage, a petitioner may also claim damages for adultery against the co-respondent (the third party in layman terms) for damages under Section 59 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“LRA 1976”).
  • Damages awarded are compensatory in nature. Assessment would be on losses to restore the petitioner (and the children if any) to the life they would have enjoyed if the break-up had no occurred.
  • Damages would be monetary in nature. It is at the discretion of the court.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the wife?
  • Section 77 of the LRA 1976 gives power to the court to order a man to pay maintenance to his wife or former wife.
  • However, there is no automatic right for a woman to claim maintenance from her husband. The court will consider many of the following circumstances:
  • Means and needs of the parties in Section 78; and
  • Length of marriage.
  • In considering “means and needs of the parties”, the court will analyse the earnings of both the husband and wife. If the wife is a of an able-bodied person and has the means to support and maintain herself, little or no maintenance would be ordered. This is also termed as “self-sufficient” and “self-reliant”.
Can husband be ordered to pay maintenance of the child (if any)?
  • Yes. There is a duty for both parents to maintain and contribute to the maintenance of the child. The cost will be half for the child’s health, accommodation, clothing, food and education. This is provided in Section 92 of the LRA 1976.

Recent Post

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 »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us