Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

SUCCESSION — INTESTACY — DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE

In brief

  •  The significance of making a will cannot be overstated. Many people, however, put off writing one because they don’t want to think about their death, or because they believe writing a will is an expensive or complicated process. Many people also believe that having a will is unnecessary because their property and belongings would be naturally passed on to their spouses and children. This article will explain why everyone needs a will and what happens if someone dies without one.

What happens if you die interstate or partially interstate? 

  •  If a deceased person has not left instructions for the distribution of some of his or her assets and properties, those assets and properties shall be distributed in accordance with the Distribution Act, 1958. According to the 1958 Act, assets are distributed differently based on the heirs or lawful family members left behind by the deceased.

Q. Assume that both spouses had passed and that they had no children. As a result, both of them possessed a property before they died, but no wills were written. How would the court address this issue in this situation?

A. In most cases, if neither person has made a written will, the court will divide the property evenly between the parents of both parties. If a person dies without a parent, spouse, or children, his inheritance will be divided among his/her siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts, great grandparents, and great grand uncles and aunts.

. However, if a person dies and leaves the spouse, children, and parents, the spouse will receive a quarter of the remaining assets, the children half, and the parents the remaining quarter. Section 4 of the Distribution Act of 1958 covers further scenarios.

What can I do to avoid intestacy?

  •  Solicitors will normally suggest incorporating a residuary provision in Wills to avoid intestacy and prevent assets from being distributed pursuant to the 1958 Act. These are general terms that cover the remainder of your estate. In other words, this clause will cover all assets that you do not specifically specify in your Will and provide directions for their distribution or inheritance.

Example: You can direct the remainder of your estate to a nonprofit organization or a specific individual. You can also direct that your leftovers be sold and the money divided according to any formula you specify, with the proceeds going to whoever you specify as the intended beneficiaries.

  •  Another strategy to prevent intestacy issues is to transfer part of your assets and properties to your chosen beneficiaries while you are still living. While you may not want to do this with all of your properties (for example, your current home), it does minimize the number of assets you or your attorneys will have to account for when preparing your will, lowering the danger of leaving any assets for which you have a specific intention.

Recent Post

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us