Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

SHIPPING LAW – SHIP ARREST – MORTGAGE – ACTION IN REM – SERVICE WITHIN MALAYSIA

Q: Can I file a Writ In Rem in Kuala Lumpur and have the ship arrested in Kota Kinabalu?
A: Yes. This is because Section 7(2) of the Courts Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) allows any writ and warrant issued within the High Court Malaya be executed or served anywhere in Malaysia. This would include Sabah and Sarawak.

Cases In Point: Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 1067 (EWCA); The Monica S [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113; ‘The Fierbinti’ [1994] 3 SLR 864 and Nassau Maritime Holdings Designated Activity Co v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel ‘Cape Lambert’ [2020] 11 MLJ 561 

Q: What is a Writ In Rem?
A: A Writ In Rem is a legal document that invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court against “the thing” or “res” in dispute. The thing or res is usually a ship. A Writ In Rem can be distinguished from a normal writ which is issued against a person or body of person. This is also known as a Writ In Personam. A Writ in Rem may be issued even when the res is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It can then be served when the res eventually comes within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

Q: How can I invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court?
A: Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked if the criteria set out in Sections 20 and 21 of the UK Seniors Court Act 1981 (“SCA 1981”) are fulfilled.

Q: My company has failed to pay the loans of the bank in respect of a ship mortgaged to the bank. Can the bank arrest the ship of my company?
A: Yes. Mortgage or charge on a ship falls within the category in Section 20(2)(c) of the SCA 1981. Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked.

Q: What if my company has sold the ship to a new buyer. Can the bank still pursue the claim against the res i.e. the ship?
A: Yes. Mortgage claim falls within the category where an action in rem may be brought against the res in connection with the mortgage. Unlike in a situation of cargo damage claim (which is explained in our previous legal update), the bank does not have to show the owner is liable in personam to pay the loan. Hence, even if the owner of the vessel has changed, an action in rem can still be brought against the res i.e. the ship.

 

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN