Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami