Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW- DIVORCE- MAINTENANCE

Miss Ong (the petitioner) and Mr. Kam (the respondent) have divorced. Miss Ong has custody of the three sons (Carson, aged 24, Jason, aged 22, and Danny, aged 16). In the Decree Nisi (divorce order) given by the court, Mr. Kam agreed to pay monthly maintenance of RM1,000 for Danny, in addition to his tuition fees until he reached the age of 18 or when he finished his tertiary education. Miss Ong is not receiving any maintenance from Mr. Kam since she is working.

After Miss Ong lost her job, she applied to the court for an increase in the maintenance for Danny to RM5,580 each month. Recently, she won a suit against her former employer and was entitled to a huge amount of money. Can Miss Ong amend the Decree Nisi issued by the court?

Q: What should the court consider in awarding maintenance to Miss Ong?

A: The court will consider whether to award maintenance to Miss Ong by looking at the “means and needs” of the parties i.e. the basic needs and obligations of the parties. The court will disregard the proportion of the maintenance taken from the income of Mr. Kam (Section 78 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976).

Q: What factors does the court have to take into account in considering the means and needs?

A: The court will look into:

  • How long does the marriage last;
  • Whether there were any children in the marriage;
  • The age of the parties;
  • Whether Miss Ong depended on Mr. Kam financially during the marriage;
  • The parties’ earning capabilities; and
  • Whether the divorce would have affected Mr. Kam’s position financially.

Q: Can Miss Ong amend the Decree Nisi issued by the court?

A: Mr. Kam is currently maintaining Danny’s expenses until he graduates or reaches the age of 18. Miss Ong has gotten a huge amount of money after winning the suit against her former employer, she definitely has no problem maintaining herself, and her three sons’ expenses. Furthermore, she has not reached the age of retirement and is capable of seeking another job to maintain herself and the sons. She lost her employment and this cannot be used as a reason to claim additional maintenance from Mr. Kam.

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