Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY – SINGAPORE HIGH COURT CLARIFIES RIGHTS OF SUIT UNDER BILLS OF LADING ACT AND WRONGFUL ARREST THRESHOLD IN THE JEIL CRYSTAL

1. Summary and Facts

Owners of or Other Persons Interested in the Cargo Lately Laden Onboard “Jeil Crystal” v Owners of the Vessel “Jeil Crystal” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 299 concerns a case involving a Swiss bank, Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCGE), which financed a shipment of lube oil carried on the vessel Jeil Crystal, owned by Jeil International Co Ltd. BCGE initially held the original bills of lading, giving it temporary legal rights to the cargo. However, at the request of its customer, GP Global, the bank endorsed and returned those bills, effectively giving up its rights. GP Global then arranged for new “switch bills of lading” to be issued to a different bank, and the cargo was delivered in Bangladesh against a letter of indemnity. Months later, BCGE wrongly claimed it was still the lawful holder of the first bills and sued the shipowner for wrongful delivery, even arresting the vessel. It was later proven that BCGE no longer possessed the bills at the time of the arrest.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether BCGE had any contractual or tortious rights of suit under the bills of lading when the cargo was discharged.
• Whether the shipowner was liable of duty or wrongful switching of bills.
• Whether BCGE’s arrest of the vessel was wrongful due to its lack of standing as the lawful holder of the bills of lading.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Singapore High Court dismissed BCGE’s claim and partially allowed the shipowner’s counterclaim for wrongful arrest.
• BCGE was the lawful holder only between 19 and 25 June 2020, after receiving the First Set BLs and before endorsing them to GP Global.
• Upon endorsement and delivery to GP Global on 25 June, BCGE divested itself of all rights under section 2(5) of the Singapore Bill of Lading Act 1992 (“BLA”), which extinguishes the transferor’s rights once transferred.
• Therefore, when BCGE commenced proceedings and arrested the vessel on 10 October 2020, it had no standing as holder or party to the contract of carriage.
• BCGE’s claim for wrongful switch BL and misdelivery was dismissed in full. The switch itself was lawful, as BCGE had already relinquished possession and rights in the bills when it was effected.
• The arrest was wrongful, as BCGE acted with gross negligence, implying malice by failing to verify that it held the bills before seeking arrest.

4. Practical Implications

This judgment has clarified the blur line in the legal position of trade finance banks and shipowners under the Bills of Lading Act 1992 as well as carriage of goods by sea, whereas:
• Trade finance banks must ensure they retain possession of the original bills of lading if they wish to preserve their legal rights over the cargo or to sue under the contract of carriage.
• Parties seeking to arrest a vessel must verify that they have a valid legal basis and standing to do so.
This case serves as a clear reminder of the strict application of the Bills of Lading Act 1992, where it carefully protect the interest of the parties in contract.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us