Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

WILL – SECRET TRUST – TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY

Q: Can a will be challenged on the ground that my father was so sick that it is impossible for him to sign a will with a conscious mind?
A: You may challenge the will on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity of your father at the time when a will was signed.

Essentially, the testator must understand the nature of the act and effects of signing a will. He must understand the extent of the property he is disposing. He must understand the claims of his property that he will give effect upon his death.

To determine whether a person has a testamentary capacity, the court will look at the soundness of the mind of the testator and NOT the particular state of bodily health.

Q: What is the meaning of soundness of the mind of the testator?
A: To displace testamentary capacity by reason of soundness of mind, proof of serious illness is NOT enough. There must be clear evidence that illness of the testator affects his mental faculties eg. mental disorder or insane delusion. To the extent that he is not able to dispose of his property in a will on the day the will is made. There should be medical evidence that support the testator does not have testamentary capacity.

Courts have in the past made the following observation. Terminal cancer patient (even if he is deaf and dumb), chronic diabetic and patient who had serious accident which left him in a quadriplegic condition – did not mean the deceased did not have the testamentary capacity when making the will.

Q: Who has the legal burden to prove lack of testamentary capacity?
A: The legal burden is on the party who challenge the will to prove that the testator lacked the testamentary capacity to make the will.

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 »

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