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

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

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 »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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 »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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 »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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 »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us