案件(1)   Case 1

在Perman Sdn Bhd & Ors v European Commodities Sdn Bhd & Anor [2006] 1 MLJ 97 的案件里,上诉庭法官提起:“法律的政策是,在没有最明确证据的情况下, 只要那个产业是注册他的名字,那个产业就是属于他的,所谓的背后主人是不应该存在的。”


In the case of Perman Sdn Bhd & Ors v European Commodities Sdn Bhd & Anor [2006] 1 MLJ 97; [2005] 4 CLJ 750, where Court of Appeal held: There is nothing in that document or the surrounding circumstances that goes to affirmatively show a clear intention to create a binding declaration of a trust on the part of the first defendant which is the true owner of the Family shares. The standard of proving that an express trust exists in given circumstances is a high one. For, it is the policy of the law that no person’s property should be burdened with the interest of another in the absence of the clearest proof.



案件(2)   Case 2

Yap Yen Piow v Hee Wee Eng [2017] 1 MLJ 17的案件里,法官提起:“法律没有定义婚姻财产是什么。但是,一旦产业是一起通过共同努力而取得的财产,此产业就必须分配。声称有一起努力获取此产业的一方,必须证明他/她在此产业,付出过的努力。”


In the case of Yap Yen Piow v Hee Wee Eng [2017] 1 MLJ 17 where it was decided as follows:

“[13] The Act does not define what matrimonial assets are. However, when the property had been acquired by joint efforts, it must be brought to account for purpose of distribution. The burden will appear to be on the person who alleges that it was acquired by joint efforts.”


Court of Appeal had clearly clarified matrimonial assets as follows:

[11] Section 76 of the LRA 1976 is the key statutory provision to deal with the division of the property. In principle, it differentiates assets acquired during the subsistence of marriage into three types. They are as follows:

(a) any assets acquired by joint efforts which we have classified as matrimonial property. In this category, the court has an obligation to divide the assets (see s 76(1) of the LRA 1976);

(b) any assets acquired by one party by sole effort which we classify as non-matrimonial property. In this category, the court is not obliged to divide but may do so (see s 76(3) of the LRA 1976); and

(c) assets which were acquired before the marriage but has been substantially improved by the other party or by their joint efforts. In this category, if there is no substantial improvement, the property is not subjected to division at all. In addition, if the property has been acquired before the marriage and subjected to a loan, the said property may not fall in that category (see s 76(5) of the LRA 1976).


案件(3)   Case 3

Ng Li Lin (P) v Ting Tian Hwa [2017] 10 MLJ 62的案件里,法官说:“尽管男方支付了订金RM50,000以购买此产业,男方却让女方成为此财产的唯一一个买家和拥有此产业。女方是以她个人名誉申请银行贷款,成为唯一的贷款者。女方辩称,这些事实证明男方是有意将此产业当作礼物送给她;此“送礼”的假设性比 “女方是男方的产业信托人”的假设性来得更逻辑。“送礼”的假设性是可以以证据来推翻的,但是男方却没有提供足够证据去推翻这个假设性。除了男方在2014年支付了RM50,000订金和支付六了个月的银行贷款外,男方没有证据证明他对购买此产业的过程中,在金钱上做出任何直接的贡献/付款。女方是用自己的财务资源和银行贷款支付了购买此产业的余额。”


In the case of Ng Li Lin (P) v Ting Tian Hwa [2017] 10 MLJ 626, the court held that: “(2) Despite his initial payment of RM50,000 towards the acquisition of the property, the defendant had allowed the plaintiff to be the sole purchaser and registered owner of the property. The bank loan was in her name. The plaintiff contended that these facts pointed to an intention on the defendant’s part that his contribution was a gift to her; that a presumption of advancement applied in her favour negating any presumption of a resulting trust in his favour. The presumption of advancement was rebuttable but the defendant failed to adduce sufcient evidence in that regard. Apart from paying the RM50,000 deposit and six-monthly instalments in 2014, there was no evidence of any direct financial contribution by the defendant towards the purchase of the property. The plaintiff had paid the balance of the purchase price with her own financial resources and through the bank loan.



Source: Ong Suan Sim v Paul Wilfred Yap @ Yap Ah Tee [2019] 10 MLJ 640, Shah Alam High Court




*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com

*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com

*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice

*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice

*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage

*加入我们的网络论坛: www.queco.org

*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们为无数的平民百姓免费解除了各类的法律困扰。

*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。


*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as commercial disputes, civil litigation, debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.

#马来西亚华人律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #Klang Lawyer #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #KL Lawyer #懂华文的律师

#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼


离婚案: 太太个人名下的房产, 丈夫能分一份吗?Part 2