Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DIVISION OF MATRIMONIAL ASSETS

 

Many people have this false conception that all assets of the husband including EPF, shares and monies will be divided equally when there is a divorce.

What is the law that governs division of matrimonial assets in Malaysia?

  • It is governed under Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (“the LRA 1976”).
  • Generally, the courts will pivot towards equality of division subject to the following factors of consideration:
  • The extent of contributions made by the husband and wife;
  • The debts owing by either party contracted for their joint benefit;
  • Needs of the minor children; and/or
  • Duration of marriage.

What is the extent of contributions made that will be considered?

  • First, the monetary contribution towards the purchase of the property will be considered. However, Court will also consider situation where husband pays housing loan while wife pays for the other day-to-day expenses as contribution.
  • Second, if working husband pays for the property but wife takes care of children at home, the wife’s work at home is considered contribution under Section 76(2)(aa) of the LRA 1976.

What is “debts owing by either party contracted for their joint benefit”?

  • Most properties will be acquired through joint loans obtained from the bank.
  • The court will consider these joint loans taken by the husband and wife in deciding division of matrimonial assets.
  • Assuming if a loan was obtained in the joint names of the husband and wife. There is no minor children. Wife is staying in the matrimonial home. The court may still order for matrimonial home to be sold and the proceeds be divided equally.
  • If the parties have minor children who are living in the matrimonial home under the care of the mother,
  • it is unlikely that the court will order sale of the matrimonial property. In such circumstances, the court may order the parties to continue paying the instalment of the matrimonial home.
  • The court might consider proportion of contribution of the instalments by the parties after considering the ability of the parties to pay for the matrimonial property.

What about duration of marriage?

  • If the marriage lasted a very short time eg. 6 months to a year, it is very unlikely the court will grant any claim for matrimonial properties assuming if the husband is paying for the same. There will be an assumption that there will be little or no contribution at all to the welfare of the family during the young marriage, unless otherwise proven.
  • However, if the marriage is long and wife has made career sacrifices to cater for the family needs, then the chances towards division of matrimonial assets are higher. This is notwithstanding there is no pecuniary contribution by the wife at all.
  • Only assets acquired during marriage and assets owned before marriage but substantially improved during marriage by joint efforts are termed “matrimonial assets”.
  • The burden is on the claimant to prove contribution towards acquisition or improvement to claim division.
 
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN