Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA 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.
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