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

    LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

    Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

    This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

    Read More »
    8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

    THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

    Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

    Read More »
    8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

    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
    ms_MYMY
    en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
    × Hubungi Kami