Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – PETITION

In brief 

  •  Every marriage solemnized in Malaysia after March 1, 1982 will last until it is dissolved (a) by the death of one of the parties; (b) by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring the marriage invalid and void.  The High Court of Malaya has exclusive authority to handle divorce and matrimonial cases under Section 24 of the Courts Judicature Act 1964.

How to get a divorce?

  • They are eligible to apply for a divorce by way of a joint petition under Section 52 Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 if the parties agreed to the divorce, one of them is domiciled in Malaysia (or a Malaysian citizen), and they have been married for at least two (2) years at the time of the presentation of the Petition for Divorce (Act 164).
  •  On the other hand, if one of the parties does not agree with the divorce or cannot agree on the conditions of the divorce, they might hire an attorney to file a single petition. Hence, it will be conducted by the Marriage Tribunal at the National Registration Department of Malaysia as both parties are required to attend the meeting before the single petition has been filed.

What do I need to do in order to file for divorce in Malaysia?

  •  Under S.48(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA) must be compiled before a decree of divorce can be made by the court where it states that the marriage must be registered or deemed to be registered under Malaysian law or a foreign legislation that recognizes monogamy. Except in unusual or hardship instances, both parties live in Malaysia or consider Malaysia to be their permanent home, and both parties have been married for at least two years.

Q. What if the husband is neither a Malaysian resident nor a Malaysian citizen? Does the court still have authority to proceed with the divorce petition?

A. In these circumstances, the court still has the additional jurisdiction in proceedings as the wife has to prove that she has been deserted by the husband or the husband has been deported from Malaysia and she must be a resident in Malaysia for a period of 2 years.

Conciliation and Reconciliation under Section 106 of LRA 1976

  •  After determining that all attempts at reconciliation had failed, the court would decree a divorce of marriage. In reality, prior to filing for divorce, attempts at reconciliation are required. That is, every divorce petition must describe what measures were done to reconcile the parties.
  •  According to Section 106 of the LRA, the marital conflict must be submitted to a conciliatory authority before filing a petition for divorce in court. Unless one or more of the exceptions listed under sub-sections (1)(i)–(vi) of section 106 of the LRA apply, a spouse intending to petition for divorce on the grounds that his or her marriage has irretrievably broken down must have first referred the matrimonial difficulty to a conciliatory body and obtained a certificate from that body confirming that it has failed to reconcile the parties. These exceptions apply in cases where the respondent has been imprisoned for five years or more; or has deserted the petitioner and the petitioner has no idea where the respondent is; or l the respondent resides abroad and is unlikely to enter the jurisdiction within six months after the date of the petition.

Q. If you had filed a divorce petition and the court agreed with it, however, how does the court divide the matrimonial assets after a divorce?

A. The court can split assets acquired during the marriage by joint efforts of the spouses, or assets possessed prior to marriage by one spouse and significantly enhanced during the marriage by the other spouse or through their joint efforts. It’s also worth noting that the court won’t always divide the assets EQUALLY; instead, the court will usually divide the assets/money based on the facts of the case, taking into account either spouse’s contribution in money, assets, work, or debts for the benefit of both parties, as well as the needs of young children.

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
en_USEN