Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.
 

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