Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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.
 
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami