Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY – MARINE INSURANCE – CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY

ABC insurance company rejected B’s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.

Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity against the ship owner?

  • Generally, the right of contribution and indemnity of the insurer arises from its right of subrogation under the law of insurance.
  • In the context of marine insurance, Section 79 of the United Kingdom Marine Insurance Act 1906 (“UK Marine Insurance Act 1906”) provides as follows:

“(1)  Where the insurer pays for a total loss, either of the whole, or in the case of goods of any apportionable part, of the subject-matter insured, he thereupon becomes entitled to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject-matter so paid for, and he is thereby subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of that subject-matter as from the time of the casualty causing the loss.”

How is the UK Marine Insurance Act 1906 applicable in Malaysia?

  • This is because Section 5(1) of the Malaysian Civil Law Act 1956 provides that the law on marine insurance in Malaysia is the same as would be administered in England.

Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity before paying the B’s loss?

  • There are 2 conflicting decisions of the High Court. In Lim Sze Way v Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd (Supreme Power Auto Sdn Bhd & Ors, 3rd Parties) [2020] MLJU 2089, the High Court held that unless the insurance company has

has accepted the insurance claim and subrogated the right of the insured, the insurance company has no cause of action against the 3rd party tortfeasor. In the context of insurance company against 3rd party, the insurance company cannot maintain any other causes of action against the tortfeasor other than by way of subrogation of the right of the insured.

On the contrary, the Sabah High Court had in Sing Yung Steel Sdn Bhd v MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 3046 held that contribution and indemnity can arise in various situation independent of contract. The issue of subrogation is a matter that is to be decided at trial.

The decision in Sing Yung Steel is certainly driven by convenience. This is because if the court eventually decides the insurance company is required to pay for the losses of the insured, the right of subrogation would have arisen. It follows that the insurer is then entitled to seek contribution and indemnity against 3rd party tortfeasor who is liable to the loss in the first place. All these can be dealt with together in the main suit.

Both decisions have its pros and cons. Keeping in mind, a High Court judge is not bound by another High Court judge’s decision (See Sundralingam v Ramanathan Chettiar [1967] 2 MLJ 211 (FC))

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

DISCOVERY APPLICATION – HIGH COURT ORDERS JPN TO DISCLOSE FAMILY TREE — STATUTORY RIGHT OVERRIDES ADMINISTRATIVE SECRECY

In V Kalanathan a/l Veeran v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 529, the High Court directed JPN to disclose the family tree details of a deceased co-proprietor to assist in probate proceedings. The Court held that such information, recorded in JPN’s digital registers, constitutes a “document” under Order 24 rule 7A ROC 2012 and is not an official secret in the absence of a valid OSA certification. JPN’s reliance on internal circulars was rejected, as statutory rights under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1957 cannot be curtailed by administrative policy. The ruling reinforces that discovery against government agencies is permissible where necessary to ensure the fair disposal of proceedings.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE – SOLICITOR – PANEL SOLICITORS LIABLE: LITIGATION BRIEF DOES NOT EXCUSE FAILURE TO PROTECT BANK’S SECURITY

In Malayan Banking Bhd v Russell Lua Kok Hiyong & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 599, the High Court held the bank’s former panel solicitors professionally negligent for failing to safeguard the bank’s proprietary interest in a charged property during litigation. The Court ruled that a solicitor’s duty to protect a client’s interests extends beyond the confines of a ‘litigation-only’ brief, particularly where the risk of loss is obvious and foreseeable. Limitation was held to run only when actual loss crystallised, and all partners were found jointly and severally liable under the Partnership Act 1961. The decision is a clear warning that solicitors must act proactively to protect client interests, even outside their immediate scope of instruction.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us