Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

FAMILY LAW – DIVORCE – REDEFINING SPOUSAL SUPPORT – FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

1. Illustrative scenario:

X (husband) and Y (wife) are both employed as insurance agents. They registered their marriage in October 2014 and welcomed their son, Z, in 2016.

Over time, their marriage deteriorated due to frequent arguments and conflicts. Y accused X of having extramarital affairs based solely on a shirtless selfie. Y further escalated tensions by uploading a video with disparaging remarks about X, knowingly tarnishing his image and reputation.

In 2019, Y and Z left the matrimonial home. In October 2020, Y filed for divorce, and X responded with a cross-petition in December 2020.

Y seeks a one-time spousal maintenance payment of RM750,000 from X, and maintenance for Z either as a lump sum of RM1.8 million or a monthly amount of RM15,000.

Issues:

  • Should financially independent women expect spousal maintenance from their former husbands upon divorce?
  • In the current age of gender equality, should financially self-reliant women share the responsibility of maintaining themselves and their children after divorce?

2. Laws & Legal Principles:

  • Section 77(1) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRMDA) grants the court discretionary power to order spousal maintenance, as indicated by the use of the term ‘may’.
  • When assessing maintenance, the court considers the degree of responsibility for the marriage breakdown and applies the ‘means and needs’ test according to Section 78 of the LRMDA 1976.
  • Key factors in the ‘means and needs’ test:
  • The current and foreseeable future income, earning capacity, property, or financial resources of each party;
  • The current and foreseeable future financial needs, obligations, and responsibilities of each party;
  • The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the marriage breakdown;
  • Any existing health, physical, or mental disabilities of the parties;
  • The respective contributions of each party to the welfare of the family; and
  • The duration of the marriage.

3. Application to Scenario:

  • In this scenario, the court is likely to find that the marriage’s irretrievable breakdown was due to Y’s actions, as there is no solid evidence supporting her allegations of adultery against X.
  • Regarding the ‘means and needs’ test, the fact that Y never sought interim maintenance while living apart from X raises questions about the urgency of her financial needs. Given Y’s ability to earn sufficient income, it would be unjust for X to bear perpetual spousal maintenance. The court will likely require Y to share the financial responsibility for their child, Z.

4. Reference cases:

  • ACH v PAY [2024] 8 MLJ 114
  • Shameni Pillai a/p PB Rajedran v. S Arulselvam a/l Sanggilly and Rafidah bt Mat Taib (responden bersama) [2010] MLJU 1333; [2011] 6 CLJ 782
  • V Sandrasagaran Veerapan Raman v. Deetarassar [1999] 5 CLJ 474
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH