Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们