Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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

    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