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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN