Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – BEHAVIOUR CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO LIVE TOGETHER

Divorce can be petitioned on the ground marriage has irretrievably broken down. In deciding whether there is breakdown, the court will consider issues such as adultery, behaviour of the parties, desertion and living apart for more than 2 years.

How do court consider “behaviour which cannot be reasonably be expected to live together”?

  • Whether or not the behaviour is such that the husband and wife cannot be reasonably be expected to live together is for the judge to decide.
  • The judge will consider the effect of the behaviour of the couple.
  • It is not enough to say the wife is tired of the husband or fed up with him. The behaviour must be so unreasonable that it cannot be expected that the wife can continue to live with the husband.
  • The court will consider the character, personality, disposition and behaviour of the petitioner – The person who claims I cannot live together with him/her. Can this petitioner, with this personality and behaviour reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? This is the question the court will answer after hearing the parties in open court.
  • The court will look at the personalities and characters of the parties. The court might not agree with the truth of the allegations of the Petitioners such as he/her ill treated me some way or another. But if the acrimony is palpable, the judge may rule the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

    Case in point : CSM v TCC [2023] 9 MLJ 116

    Back to Latest Legal Updates

    Sorotan Terkini

    FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

    In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

    Read More »
    31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

    BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

    In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

    Read More »
    31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

    ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

    In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

    Read More »
    31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

    COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

    In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

    Read More »
    31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

    GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

    In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

    Read More »
    31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
    ms_MYMY
    en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
    × Hubungi Kami