Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – ILLEGITIMATE CHILD – MAN REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE PATERNITY – DNA TEST

Q: Mr. T and I met each other back in 2015. We were not married and were in an intimate relationship for a period of time. I became pregnant. Mr. T requested me to get an abortion but I refused to. When the child was born, I asked Mr. T to provide support for child maintenance. Mr. T refused to acknowledge the child as his son. Can I compel him to undergo a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (“DNA”) test to determine the paternity of the child?

No.

 Whether a person can be compelled by the Court to undergo DNA test?

No.

  • The only statute that empowers the Court to order an individual to undergo DNA test in Malaysia is the DNA Identification Act 2009. HOWEVER, the Act only applies to criminal proceedings. That also requires individual consent before DNA samples can be taken for examination.
  • Presently, there is no statute nor common law that empowers the court to order an individual to undergo DNA test in a civil suit.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution (“FC”) states thar “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law”. Why the law is not protecting the right of the child?

The Article 8 of the FC does not confer the ‘right to pedigree’ such as the right of the minor to know his or her true identity and to have the possibility of contact with each natural parent.

Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) which states that “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents” confers upon the child the right to know the identity of his or her father.

Yes, Article 7 of the UNCRC confers upon the child the right to know the identity of his or her father BUT Article 7 of the UNCRC must be read together with section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 (“BDRA 1957”). Section 13 of the BDRA 1957 exempts the father from giving any information concerning the birth of the child. 

Case in point: Lee Lai Cheng (suing as the next friend of Lim Chee Zheng and herself) v Lim Hooi Teik [2017] 10 MLJ 331. High Court (Georgetown) – Civil Suit no: 22-587 of 2004

Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami