Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

1. Illustrative scenario:

The petitioner, a husband, filed for the dissolution of his marriage to the respondent, his wife, on the basis that their marriage had irretrievably broken down due to their separation for at least two continuous years immediately before the petition was filed.

The respondent wife acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to the separation but also sought dissolution on the grounds of adultery. She successfully added the alleged adulteress (woman X) as a party to the petition. However, the wife did not seek any damages or relief against woman X.

The key legal questions presented are

  • Is the separation alone, which led to an irretrievable breakdown, sufficient to grant a divorce decree without the need to investigate the adultery claim?
  • Is it unnecessary to delve into the adultery allegation when no damages or relief are being sought against the alleged adulteress?.

2. The Applicable Principles:

  • s.54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘the LRMDA’) outlines four grounds for proving that a marriage has irretrievably broken down: adultery, unreasonable behavior, desertion, or having lived apart for at least two continuous years immediately before filing the petition.
  • If both parties agree that they have lived apart for the required two years, further inquiry into whether the marriage has also irretrievably broken down due to adultery is not necessary.
  • The LRMDA aims to dissolve marriages that have irretrievably broken down with minimal bitterness, distress, and humiliation, where fault is not relevant for the divorce grant.
  • While adultery can be examined during the trial, if there is no claim for damages or relief against the adulteress, pursuing this issue would be considered frivolous and could unnecessarily delay the divorce proceedings. Such claims may be dismissed by the court to avoid undue delays.

Reference cases:

  • Premganesh a/l Dr K Ganaisan v. Nagaletchumy a/p Thangarasu & Anor [2023] 8 MLJ 286
  • SS v. HJK [1991] MLJU 18
  •  

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