ADMIRALTY LAW– SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

UNCLOS (1982 Dec. 10) 1833 U.N.T.S. 397

Purpose of the UNCLOS and has it been ratified by Malaysia?
1. Establishing a legal order for the Seas and oceans with the aim of:
– Spurring international communication on maritime fronts between states.
– Promoting peaceful use of the seas and oceans.
– Conserving the living resources and the marine environment.

2. Malaysia ratified UNCLOS on the 14th of October 1996 as a state party Malaysia has always and continues to implement into practice various provisions under UNCLOS 1982.

What is the significance of UNCLOS 1982 in Malaysia?

Malaysia is strategically located between the South China Sea and the straits of Malacca and Singapore, it is one of the most important waterways connecting the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, the growing presence of the Straits in international trade poses evolving challenges. UNCLOS 1982 ensures the economic viability and sustainability of the ecosystem along the abovementioned shipping channels are preserved.

What are the measures under UNCLOS 1982 practiced by Malaysia?

Malaysia practices the Traffic Separation Scheme, prescribed under UNCLOS 1982 to ensure safe passage through the Straits, this eases international navigation for ships through the straits.
UNCLOS 1982 also provides cooperative arrangements between states as a method to strengthen communication.
The cooperation aids in the preservation of marine environment. For instance, states may establish requirements to reduce and control pollution to allow the entry of foreign vessels into their ports.
The mechanism also acts as a platform for companies and other stakeholders of the shipping industry to actively contribute towards efforts to maintain and improve safety of navigation and preservation of biodiversity in the shipping channels.

What are the current maritime co-operations pursued by Malaysia?

Malaysia promotes cooperation in maritime security through the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) through forums such as the ASEAN Maritime forum.
Malaysia alongside Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand formed the Malacca Straits Coordinated Patrols they pursue activities to maintain the security in the Straits of Malacca.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines share an avenue under the Trilateral Cooperative Arrangement with the aim of meeting common goals such as strengthening maritime security in the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

30 March ,2026 No Comments