Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Matrimonial assets

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2024

LIOW KENG LUAN HEALTH RESOURCES SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-170-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-170-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The company is a separate legal entity; the personal relationship and family disputes between the director and her husband do not determine the company’s claims. The cause of action in the Sessions Court (breach of fiduciary duties) is distinct from the family proceedings in the High Court, so a stay was not warranted and the appeal is dismissed.
25 Oct 2024

PRAEMA A/P CHINNAYA 1. ) KUNASEGERAN A/L KANDASAMY 2. ) LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN (FELDA)

Citation

NA-24NCvC-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

NA-24NCvC-73-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was improperly brought and premature because division of matrimonial assets must be sought under s 76 et seq. of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 in proceedings for dissolution or judicial separation; the court found evidence that Respondent First had been paying RM500 monthly to the applicant and that the applicant had sought suspension of payments in 2022; the claim was mala fide and involved only a dispute between spouses, not FELDA, therefore the originating summons is dismissed with costs to Respondent First.
27 Sept 2023

TAN YING SHI 1. ) KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA 2. ) LIM TSOO SIN

Citation

WA-24F-154-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24F-154-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to satisfactorily explain an 18-month delay in bringing the claim; on the merits the October 2021 order required the deceased to withdraw EPF funds as maintenance arrears (not as a s53A matrimonial asset transfer), section 53A grants the EPF Board discretion and is not mandatory, and section 51 generally prevents attachment of EPF credits, so relief could not be granted.
27 Sept 2023

TAN YING SHI 1. ) KUMPULAN WANG SIMPANAN PEKERJA 2. ) LIM TSOO SIN

Citation

WA-24NCvC-359-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-359-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because the Plaintiff's 18‑month delay in seeking relief was not satisfactorily explained and because the October 2021 order required the Deceased to withdraw EPF monies as maintenance arrears (not as a matrimonial asset under section 53A); section 53A vests discretion in the EPF Board and does not compel transfer, and the valid nomination to the Deceased's mother further precluded the relief sought.
14 Jul 2023

ALVIN TAN MIN SZE CHAN EE LYNN

Citation

BA-24NCvC-2137-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-2137-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The defendant, though not the registered owner, established a legitimate beneficial claim to the property by way of resulting/constructive trust and therefore falls within s323(1)(b) NLC as a person claiming to be beneficially entitled under a trust affecting the land; accordingly the private caveat was lawful and the plaintiff's application for its removal was dismissed.
20 Jun 2023

PEMPETISYEN EWE KHAY GUAN CHIN OI KHIUN

Citation

PA-33-114-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-33-114-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion under Order 24 ROC 2012 and held that the Respondent had specified identifiable documents which were relevant and necessary to determine the Petitioner's financial capacity and the status of the parties' matrimonial assets, the documents were in the Petitioner's possession or control, and the application was not a fishing expedition; accordingly the discovery order as particularised was necessary for fair disposal and was granted with no order as to costs.
6 Jun 2023

PEMPETISYEN TAN SHEE PENG LEE BEE AI

Citation

KA-33-77-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-33-77-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Petitioner failed to prove serious or repeated assault; credibility and absence of documentary evidence (medical records not admitted, no police reports) justified drawing adverse inference as to income and rejecting petitioner’s account of being battered. The marriage is irretrievably broken and responsibility is primarily apportioned to the petitioner for abandoning the family. Welfare of the children requires stability and sole custody to the respondent; child maintenance fixed at RM1,000 per child and spousal maintenance at RM800 monthly based on assessed needs and means. The House, bough…
15 Mar 2023

PEMPETISYEN YEAP LILY CHONG CHEE MING

Citation

WA-33-108-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-108-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed discovery only to the extent necessary and clearly identified: respondent's sole bank account statements (Jan 2021–Sep 2022) for specified banks, pay-slips (Jan 2021–Sep 2022) from identified employers, current EPF statement, and sale documentation for the Seri Kembangan property, but disallowed company documents (companies are separate legal entities and the request was premature and overly broad), partnership documents (petitioner could obtain them), requests for properties owned by companies, RHB credit card statement (vague/no timeframe) and joint account statements (acc…
10 Jan 2023

PEMPETISYEN 1. ) Tamby Raja A/L Perumal 2. ) Satiavathi A/P Kayambu

Citation

WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33JP-534-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application was dismissed because it either constituted an improper re-hearing that did not comply with Rule 44 or improperly sought variation of matrimonial asset division which is final under section 76; the applicant failed to rebut the presumption she knew and consented to the signed documents and failed to satisfactorily explain an eight-month delay, therefore relief under sections 83 or 96 was not available.
29 Jul 2022

PEMPETISYEN TEH SEAK LING SIM KIAN HENG

Citation

WA-33-175-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-175-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The matrimonial home, though purchased before formal marriage, was a matrimonial asset because it was acquired and used in contemplation of the marriage, substantially financed and improved through joint efforts and the petitioner's contributions; the petitioner’s oral evidence was credible and outweighed the respondent’s implausible account, entitling her to 40% of the property's current value (MYR1,100,000 = MYR440,000).