1. ) M. P. P. L. 2. ) H. Y. S. L. XXXX

1. ) M. P. P. L. 2. ) H. Y. S. L. XXXX

Appeal allowed: the Federal Court held that on these facts a court should not compel a DNA test. The presumption of legitimacy under s.112 Evidence Act 1950 remains operative in judicial proceedings where a registered husband is the legal father and no cogent proof of "no access" is shown; s.4(3) EA operates to bar evidence to rebut that presumption in such circumstances. The court lacks statutory power to compel DNA testing in civil proceedings absent express legislation; parens patriae powers are protective and limited and must be exercised only when necessary for the child's welfare — here ordering DNA would likely harm the child's interests and was therefore refused. Accordingly High...

Citation
02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: M.P.P.L.; Appellant: H.Y.S.L.; Respondent: C.A.S.
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
3 July 2024
Case Number
02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to the Federal Court / Appeal — Judgment Delivered by Federal Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and Court of Appeal setting aside DNA testing order are set aside
Legal Topics
Paternity, Legitimacy, DNA Testing, Parens Patriae, Best Interests of the Child, Presumption of Legitimacy (s.112 Evidence Act 1950), Conclusive Proof (s.4(3) Evidence Act 1950), Judicial Power to Compel Medical Tests
Source Language
Malay/English
Family Law Evidence Administrative/constitutional Law Child Welfare Paternity Legitimacy DNA Testing Parens Patriae +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.P.P.L.

Appellant

H.Y.S.L.

Appellant

C.A.S.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to the Federal Court / Appeal — Judgment Delivered by Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether legitimacy and paternity are distinct concepts
  2. 2 Whether s.112 Evidence Act 1950 permits scientific evidence to rebut presumption of legitimacy
  3. 3 Meaning and proof of "no access" under s.112 Evidence Act 1950

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed: the Federal Court held that on these facts a court should not compel a DNA test. The presumption of legitimacy under s.112 Evidence Act 1950 remains operative in judicial proceedings where a registered husband is the legal father and no cogent proof of "no access" is shown; s.4(3) EA operates to bar evidence to rebut that presumption in such circumstances. The court lacks statutory power to compel DNA testing in civil proceedings absent express legislation; parens patriae powers are protective and limited and must be exercised only when necessary for the child's welfare — here ordering DNA would likely harm the child's interests and was therefore refused. Accordingly High...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and Court of Appeal setting aside DNA testing order are set aside

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court of Malaya and the Court of Appeal requiring the child to undergo DNA testing are set aside
  • No order as to costs