Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – ILLEGITIMATE CHILD

A had mistress and a wife; both of whom had given birth to a child each. A died without a will. Can the child of the mistress be entitled to succeed and inherit A’s property under the Distribution Act 1958?

  • Distribution Act 1958 (“DA 1958”) applies when a person dies without a will. This is called intestate in law.
  • When A dies intestate leaving a spouse and issue but no parent or parents, spouse is entitled to 1/3 and the issue the remaining 2/3.
  • If there are parents, then parents 1/4, spouse 1/4 and the issue shall be entitled to 1/2.
  • This is set out in Section 6 of the DA 1958.

Is the illegitimate child entitled to succeed and inherit A’s property?

  • Yes. Section 6 of the DA 1958 uses the word “issue” and not “child”.
  • Section 6 of the DA 1958 did not state only legitimate child could inherit the property of the intestate.
  • The Federal Court in Tan Kah Fatt & Anor v Tan Ying [2023] 2 MLJ 583 held the words “child” and “issue” are different.
  • Although child is defined as “legitimate child” in Section 3, Section 6 of the DA 1958 on distribution uses the word “issue” and not child.
  • The dictionary meaning of the word issue suggest descendants by blood lineage. Not dependent on the matter of legitimacy of the descendant.
  • As long as the child of the mistress is a descendant by blood lineage, he/she is entitled to inherit the property of A under the DA 1958.

(Case in Point: Tan Kah Fatt & Anor v Tan Ying [2023] 2 MLJ 583)

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 »

CHARTERPARTY AGREEMENTS – CHARTERER’S GUIDE TO FOULING CLAUSES

In maritime charterparty agreements, fouling clauses outline who is responsible for the costs and time associated with hull cleaning when marine organisms accumulate due to specific operating conditions. These clauses are crucial for clarifying liabilities, particularly when charterers operate in warm, bio-rich waters or leave vessels idle, as fouling can significantly impact performance and fuel efficiency. Understanding the scope of a fouling clause helps charterers navigate potential costs and ensure clear terms for post-redelivery responsibilities, as highlighted in cases like The “Globe Danae” [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 309.

Read More »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami