Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – BEHAVIOUR CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO LIVE TOGETHER

Divorce can be petitioned on the ground marriage has irretrievably broken down. In deciding whether there is breakdown, the court will consider issues such as adultery, behaviour of the parties, desertion and living apart for more than 2 years.

How do court consider “behaviour which cannot be reasonably be expected to live together”?

  • Whether or not the behaviour is such that the husband and wife cannot be reasonably be expected to live together is for the judge to decide.
  • The judge will consider the effect of the behaviour of the couple.
  • It is not enough to say the wife is tired of the husband or fed up with him. The behaviour must be so unreasonable that it cannot be expected that the wife can continue to live with the husband.
  • The court will consider the character, personality, disposition and behaviour of the petitioner – The person who claims I cannot live together with him/her. Can this petitioner, with this personality and behaviour reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? This is the question the court will answer after hearing the parties in open court.
  • The court will look at the personalities and characters of the parties. The court might not agree with the truth of the allegations of the Petitioners such as he/her ill treated me some way or another. But if the acrimony is palpable, the judge may rule the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

    Case in point : CSM v TCC [2023] 9 MLJ 116

    Back to Latest Legal Updates

    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 »
    16 December ,2024 No Comments

    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 »
    16 December ,2024 No Comments

    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 »
    16 December ,2024 No Comments

    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 »
    16 December ,2024 No Comments

    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 »
    17 November ,2024 No Comments
    en_USEN
    zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
    × Contact Us