Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

FAMILY LAW- DIVORCE- ADULTERY

I have recently found out that my husband has a mistress. I am very disappointed. I want to leave him but he does not want to agree to a divorce. Can I sue him and the mistress?

  • Your husband would have committed adultery if there is any sexual misconduct with another woman.
  • Adultery is not a crime. However, adultery can be used as a ground to end your marriage. You may also bring a civil suit against both your husband and the mistress as a co-respondent for damages.

Q: Can I end the marriage without him agreeing to it?

  • Yes, if one party to a marriage finds it intolerable to live with the spouse who has committed adultery, he/she may file a divorce as it is the reason of the marriage break down.
  • You may file single petition for divorce.

~ S.54 (1) (a) Law of Reform Act 1976

Q: Can I sue my husband’s mistress alone as she is the one who seduced my husband?

  • When you file for divorce against your husband on the ground of adultery, your husband will be made a ‘respondent’. The mistress can be made a ‘co-respondent’.
  • So, you can bring an action against the mistress when you file for divorce against your husband but not independently against the mistress.
  • The mistress may not be charged for having extramarital affair but she can be ordered by court to pay monetary compensation to you as she has contributed to the break down of your marriage irretrievably.
  • If the adultery is proven, then your husband’s mistress will need to pay monetary damage that the court thinks reasonable to the innocent party.

Q: What do I need in order to prove adultery?

  • The courts will consider the evidence adduced or witnesses’ testimony to conclude if there is any adultery.
  • You are advised to keep evidence of adultery such as the intimate pictures, text messages with the mistress, birth certificate of the illegitimate child or confession/admissions by the parties themselves.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 Februari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 Februari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 Februari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 Februari ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami