Disember 6, 2023

FAMILY LAW – ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE

Understanding Annulment of Marriage in Malaysian Law

Overview of Annulment of Marriage in Malaysia:

The annulment of marriage in Malaysia is regulated under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976. A distinction is made between a void marriage, which is deemed invalid from the time of solemnisation, and a voidable marriage, which remains valid from solemnisation until annulled by the court. The High Court has jurisdiction over granting a decree of nullity for both void and voidable marriages.

Under s.70 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (“the Act”), the grounds for a voidable marriage include:

Non-consummation due to incapacity of either party (s.70(a));
Non-consummation due to wilful refusal of the respondent (s.70(b));
Invalid consent due to duress, mistake, unsoundness of mind, or other factors (s.70(c));
Mental disorder of a party rendering them unfit for marriage (s.70(d));
Respondent suffering from communicable venereal disease at marriage time (s.70(e));
Respondent being pregnant by someone other than the petitioner at marriage time (s.70(f)).

Key Issues and Interpretations:
A petition for nullity under Section 70 must be specific and precise.
Evidence Consideration for ‘Incapacity to Consummate’ (s.70(a))
The crux of s.70(a) is the presence of psychological or sexual aversion.
Annulment cannot be based solely on mutual agreement to not consummate.
Defining “Wilful Refusal to Consummate” (s.70(b))
‘Wilful refusal’ is legally interpreted as a resolute decision made without justified reasons.
A petition for nullity on this ground must solely involve the respondent’s willful refusal, not a mutual disinterest in consummation or the marriage itself.

Case Reference: Re Kirthiga Suthan a/l Kathiravellu & Anor [2023] 12 MLJ
This recent ruling highlights and clarifies the application of Section 70 of the Act, offering valuable insight into the nuances of marriage annulment under Malaysian law

Sorotan Terkini

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami