ADMIRALTY – SHIP ARREST – SHERIFF’S EXPENSES

What is Sheriff’s expenses when a vessel is arrested in an Admiralty In Rem Proceeding?
When a ship is arrested by court in an admiralty in rem proceeding, she will be placed under the custody of the Sheriff. The Sheriff is usually the Registrar of the High Court. When the ship is arrested, the Sheriff will incur costs and expenses to effect and maintain the arrest i.e. the ship. These expenses include payment of port dues, cost of engaging a sheriff’s agent, payment of food and supplies etc.

Are you saying the Registrar of the Court will pay for the Sheriff’s expenses?
No. Sheriff expenses will usually be advanced by the arresting party (i.e. the plaintiff) pursuant to an undertaking given to the court under O.70 r.9(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2012”). The Sheriff’s expenses advanced by the arresting party may be claimed as the 2nd charge (after statutory claimants) from the proceeds of sale of the ship.

Sheriff’s expenses are ranked as one of the highest claims on the proceed of the sale of the ship. As such, arresting party (usually the plaintiff) and the owner (usually the defendant) must be mindful that prolonged arrest of a ship by the court would result in diminution of value of the ship by reason of mounting sheriff’s expenses. Owner should as soon as it is reasonably practicable post bail bonds to secure release of the vessel under arrest. If owner does not do that, the arresting party should quickly apply to court to have the vessel sold by the sheriff by way of judicial sale pendente lite.

The parties must be mindful that ship arrest is a very expensive process. It will be continuing until a sale pendente lite is ordered by the court or when there is a final disposal of the matter by the court.

There are many circumstances where the escalating Sheriff’s expenses have eroded the value of the ship. So much so that there is nothing left for the arresting party. It defeats the purpose of the arrest i.e. to arrest the ship as security for payment of the arresting party’s claim. It is advisable that valuation of the ship should be carried out before an arrest is made. The arresting party must also be mindful of the number of months a ship can be arrested before Sheriff’s expenses erode the value of the vessel so much that there is nothing left for the plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff must also be conscious that there could be other interveners’ claims which could be ranked higher than the Plaintiff’s claim. Consult a shipping expert before an arrest is made.

Recent Post

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

Born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage, an individual was deemed illegitimate following their father’s intestate death. The key legal issue is whether this individual can inherit under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA). The DA does not restrict inheritance to legitimate children only; it includes all bloodline descendants. Therefore, the individual qualifies as ‘issue’ and is entitled to inherit their father’s estate despite questions of legitimacy.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

A husband filed for divorce due to living apart from his wife for two years, while the wife attributed the breakdown to adultery, involving the alleged adulteress without seeking damages. This raises questions about the necessity of addressing adultery in divorce when no compensation is sought, as Section 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 emphasizes irretrievable breakdown without fault.

Read More »

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

In a legal spotlight, X’s acquisition of a cloned vehicle unknowingly, due to lapses in the Road Transport Department’s record-keeping, raises questions about statutory duties and public trust. The case underscores the importance of stringent vehicle registry maintenance to prevent ownership of unlawfully modified vehicles.

Read More »

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?