Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

FAMILY LAW – EQUITABLE DIVISION OF MATRIMONIAL ASSETS: EVALUATING PROPERTY AND INCOME IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS

Illustrative Scenario

The appellant (the husband) appealed against a High Court ruling made during divorce proceedings related to the division of matrimonial assets. The key assets in question include an apartment purchased in the husband’s name and income earned from his medical clinic. The couple married on 1.5.1983 and separated on 27.10.1990. A decree nisi was granted on 17.9.1993 and made absolute on 9.5.1994.

The apartment, bought in January 1990, was rented out until September 1993, generating RM85,900 in rental income, of which RM45,700 was used to pay off loan installments, leaving a shortfall of RM40,200. From October 1993 to April 1997 (44 months), the husband resided alone in the apartment. At the time of trial, RM90,000 remained outstanding on the apartment loan.

The husband challenged several aspects of the High Court’s decision:

  1. The court ordered that the apartment be valued, and after deducting the outstanding loan, half of the remaining value should be paid to the wife in cash.
  2. The court required the husband to pay the wife half of the rental shortfall.
  3. The court also required the husband to pay the wife half of the “occupation rent” for the period he resided in the apartment after the separation.
  4. Additionally, the husband appealed the decision to award the wife one-third of the net income from his medical clinic.

Key Issues

  • Should the husband be required to pay “occupation rent” for the period he lived in the apartment after separation?
  • Should the income derived from the husband’s medical clinic be apportioned to the wife?

Application to the Scenario

  • The High Court’s order that the apartment be valued, with the RM90,000 loan deducted from the total value and the remaining balance divided equally, with half paid in cash to the wife, should be upheld. However, awarding separate “occupation rent” prior to the dissolution of the marriage is unnecessary.
  • The husband should pay half of the occupation rent to the wife from the date the marriage was dissolved until her half share of the apartment’s value is paid in full.
  • Regarding the clinic income, it was noted that no precise figure could be established for the husband’s net earnings, as the income had been used for the family’s benefit during the marriage. Given this uncertainty, it would be inappropriate to divide past income. Instead, the clinic, including its equipment and goodwill, should be valued, and the wife should be awarded one-third of this value in cash.

Reference Cases

  • Ching Seng Woah v Lim Shook Lin [1997] 1 MLJ 109 – This case provides precedent on the division of matrimonial assets, supporting the fair and equitable distribution of property accumulated during the marriage.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们