Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Parens patriae

  • 24 Mar 2025

    PEMPETISYEN L E N (F) 1. ) P E N 2. ) Y E N

    Citation
    WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Application to Intervene was allowed because the Proposed Intervener, as next friend, demonstrated a prima facie proprietary/pecuniary interest of the Child in the TR Property that would be directly affected by the matrimonial proceedings; the Respondent's failure to reply to the petition and his withdrawal from an agreed DNA test justified an adverse inference and supported intervention; under Rule 83 and Order 15 r6(2)(b)(ii) the court may add the Child's next friend to protect the Child's rights without deciding substantive trust issues at interlocutory stage.

  • 24 Mar 2025

    PEMPETISYEN L E N (F) 1. ) P E N 2. ) Y E N

    Citation
    WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-33-419-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Proposed Intervener was permitted to be joined because prima facie evidence indicated the Child’s proprietary and pecuniary interests in the TR Property that would be directly affected by the matrimonial proceedings, the Respondent’s failure to reply amounted to an admission supporting that prima facie case and his refusal to undergo DNA testing justified an adverse inference; intervention under procedural rules was therefore proper to protect the Child’s rights without pre-judging substantive trust issues.

  • 3 Jul 2024

    1. ) M.P.P.L. 2. ) H.Y.S.L. C.A.S.

    Citation
    02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    f
    Case number
    02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    Appeal allowed and lower courts' orders for compelled DNA testing set aside because the conclusive presumption of legitimacy under s.112 EA remains operative absent a showing of 'no access', s.4(3) EA bars admitting evidence to rebut legitimacy in judicial proceedings except as permitted, there is no statutory power to compel DNA testing in civil proceedings, and the parens patriae jurisdiction cannot be exercised to order such invasive testing where it would not be demonstrably in the child's best interests; on the facts ordering a DNA test would harm the child and was therefore unjustified.

  • 3 Jul 2024

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

    Citation
    02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
    Court
    f
    Case number
    02(f)-49-08/2023(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

    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…

  • 27 Mar 2023

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

    Citation
    W-02(W)-1051-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
    Court
    W
    Case number
    W-02(W)-1051-05/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

    Where a putative father proves on the balance of probabilities that he had sexual relations with the mother during the child’s conception period and the test is in the child’s best interests, the High Court has inherent parens patriae jurisdiction (supported by s.24(d) CJA 1964 and s.3(1) Civil Law Act 1956 importing English common law) to order forensic DNA testing notwithstanding absence of explicit civil statutory power and notwithstanding the presumption of legitimacy under s.112 Evidence Act 1950 does not bar such inquiry.

  • 14 Nov 2022

    BAVANI A/P SUNDARAM MURGAN 1. ) BALAMURUGAN A/L AYASAMY 2. ) RAM BABU A/L CHINNAAIAH

    Citation
    CB-24F-12-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    CB-24F-12-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The application for DNA testing was dismissed. The court held that ordering DNA tests via inherent jurisdiction or parens patriae was unsuitable in the present case because there were no concurrent proceedings in which paternity was an issue, significant local statutory and religious family law considerations exist, and policy questions of this sensitivity should be addressed by legislation rather than by judicial extension of jurisdiction; consequently the court would not exercise inherent powers to order DNA tests in these circumstances.

  • 19 May 2021

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

    Citation
    WA-22F-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-22F-1-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Where a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that he may be the biological father (evidence of sexual relations during the conception period, involvement with the child, and supporting documents) and where it is in the child's best interests, the High Court has jurisdiction under its inherent/parens patriae powers to order that a child undergo DNA testing; s.112 Evidence Act does not bar enquiry into paternity; court ordered DNA testing and provided consequential directions if paternity proven.