Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Cargo Damage
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

ADMIRALTY IN REM – CARGO DAMAGE

“My company shipped steel bars from Port Klang to Kota Kinabalu. The steel bars were discovered damage upon discharge in Kota Kinabalu. Who can we claim against? Can we arrest the shipowner’s vessel?“

Yes. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court includes “(g) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship” and “(h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship“. In another words, you may invoke the “Admiralty” or “In Rem” jurisdiction of the High Court for cargo damage.

However, it must be mindful that a claim under Section 20(2)(g) and (h) of the UK Seniors Courts Act 1981 (“SCA 1981“) must satisfy two (2) requirements in s. 21 of the SCA 1981 as follows:

a.)The claim arises in connection with a ship; and
b.)The person who is liable is either owner, charterer or in possession or in control of the ship.

In another words, if the person who would be personally liable to the plaintiff’s cargo damage is someone other than “the owner, charterer or in possession or in control of the ship“, Admiralty in Rem action cannot be maintained on that ship.

It is also important to note that a claim under sub-section (g) and (h) above may be brought against either the offending ship or the sister ship(s).

 Once the aforesaid criteria are met, a writ in rem may be taken out against the ship. Before a writ in rem is issued, cargo owners might also want to take note of the following matters and perform the following steps.

  • STEP 1 : Get hold and go through the contract of carriage. This can be in the form of a bill of lading or a charterparty (fixture notes).

  • STEP 2 : Obtain a chemical or expert report identifying the cause of damage. The damage could be as a result of seawater damage, physical damage due to loading and unloading of cargo, inherent manufacturer’s defects etc.

  • STEP 3 : Identify who would be personally liable to the damage. We do note the difficulty in ascertaining who would be liable to the damage at times. However, chemical or expert report would be able to shed some light in finding this answer. If the chemical report shows the presence of chloride, then it is likely the damage is caused by seawater contamination. An action can then be commenced against the shipowner for negligence, bailment or unseaworthiness of vessel. Cargo owner may rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to imply negligence on shipowner.

  • STEP 4 : Consult your lawyers and track down the offending ship or sister ships. Lawyers might need some time to prepare the arrest papers, obtain an arrest order and making arrangement to serve the Writ on the vessel. Coordination too has to be made with the respective departments such as the marine department etc to ensure arrest is properly effected.

If you need more information on our legal updates, our Knowledge and Law News Division by clicking here , we would be  pleased to assist.

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