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

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us