Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – ILLEGITIMATE CHILD – MAN REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE PATERNITY – DNA TEST

Q: Mr. T and I met each other back in 2015. We were not married and were in an intimate relationship for a period of time. I became pregnant. Mr. T requested me to get an abortion but I refused to. When the child was born, I asked Mr. T to provide support for child maintenance. Mr. T refused to acknowledge the child as his son. Can I compel him to undergo a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (“DNA”) test to determine the paternity of the child?

No.

 Whether a person can be compelled by the Court to undergo DNA test?

No.

  • The only statute that empowers the Court to order an individual to undergo DNA test in Malaysia is the DNA Identification Act 2009. HOWEVER, the Act only applies to criminal proceedings. That also requires individual consent before DNA samples can be taken for examination.
  • Presently, there is no statute nor common law that empowers the court to order an individual to undergo DNA test in a civil suit.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (“FC”) states thar “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law”. Why the law is not protecting the right of the child?

The Article 8 of the FC does not confer the ‘right to pedigree’ such as the right of the minor to know his or her true identity and to have the possibility of contact with each natural parent.

Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) which states that “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents” confers upon the child the right to know the identity of his or her father.

Yes, Article 7 of the UNCRC confers upon the child the right to know the identity of his or her father BUT Article 7 of the UNCRC must be read together with section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (“BDRA 1957”). Section 13 of the BDRA 1957 exempts the father from giving any information concerning the birth of the child. 

Case in point: Lee Lai Cheng (suing as the next friend of Lim Chee Zheng and herself) v Lim Hooi Teik [2017] 10 MLJ 331. High Court (Georgetown) – Civil Suit no: 22-587 of 2004

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