- Wife (PW) has 2 properties registered under her sole name.
- In the divorce proceedings, the Husband (RH) claimed for half share of the 2 properties to be transferred to him. By referring to Section 76(1) – (2) of the Act for direct monetary contribution and under s 76(3) for contribution in kind.
- RH claimed that the 2 properties were purchased by PW but she was holding the 2 properties on trust for him.
- PW submitted that since the 2 properties were registered under her name, the duty is on RH to prove that it was acquired by their joint efforts.
- RW submitted that (1) the claim by RH for his contribution in kind towards the family were not supported by any plausible evidential materials (2) the expenses he did spent for his family are what is to be expected from a father when he agreed that the household consumption and the miscellaneous expenses he spent for his family have been paid as duty of a husband and a father to which he agreed (3) And these expenses cannot be construed as contribution towards the purchase of the Botanic house which entitle RH to a claim towards the Botanic house (4) the properties are still subject to bank loan. RH has not suggested that he is to share the liability in servicing the said loans and leave it to PW to bear the ﬁnancial liability in servicing both loans. Therefore, it is only just and fair in the circumstances that both properties remain in her name solely.
- RH was never interested to purchase any property or to commit himself to any loan in purchasing the said properties.
- RH’s alleged contribution in kind towards the family were not supported by any plausible evidence and the expenses that he did spend were what was expected from a father, these expenses could not be construed as contribution towards the purchase of the Botanic house which entitle RH to a claim towards the Botanic house.
- Even if RH had spent on household expenses (which in the circumstances of the case to be highly unlikely), that fact alone is not sufﬁcient for RH to invoke the provision of s 76(2) of the Act to show his contributions to the purchase of the said properties.
- Guided by the pronouncements of the Court of Appeal in Yap Yen Piow and anchored on s 76(2) and (3) of the Act, RH had failed to prove his contributions for the purchase of the said properties and therefore his claim for half share of those said properties are dismissed.
Source: Ong Suan Sim v Paul Wilfred Yap @ Yap Ah Tee  10 MLJ 640, Shah Alam High Court
*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
*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