Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ARBITRATION – SHIPPING – REPAIR GONE WRONG: CLARIFYING SHIPYARD LIABILITY IN ARBITRATION (“MARE NOVA”)

1. Summary and Facts

Mare Nova Inc v Zhangjiagang Jiushun Ship Engineering Co Ltd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 245, involved a dispute over defective ship repairs performed by Zhangjiagang Jiushun Ship Engineering Co Ltd on the vessel Mare Nova, owned by Mare Nova Inc. Following repair work, damage due to incorrect alignment of the intermediate shaft bearing was discovered shortly after the vessel left the shipyard. Mare Nova initiated arbitration, claiming damages for breach of contract and negligence. The arbitrator partially rejected the claim, citing contractual clauses that purportedly discharged liability once the vessel left the yard. Mare Nova challenged the arbitration award for serious irregularity and error of law.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 by determining an issue (discharge of liability) not previously raised.
• Whether the arbitrator erred in law under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by interpreting contractual clauses (2.1 and 6.3) as discharging the shipyard’s liability immediately after the vessel departed.

3. Court’s Findings

• The UK court upheld the challenge under Section 68, ruling that the arbitrator’s decision to discharge liability without allowing the claimant to address this issue constituted a serious procedural irregularity causing substantial injustice.
• However, the Section 69 appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, although the court confirmed the arbitrator’s legal interpretation of clauses 2.1 and 6.3 was incorrect. The court clarified that:
    a. Clause 2.1 imposed obligations regarding workmanship quality without limiting liability after delivery for breach of contract.
    b. Clause 6.3 pertained to the period of the shipyard’s responsibility as a bailee, not discharging accrued liabilities for breach of contract.
• The court remitted the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration, instructing the reconsideration to proceed on the corrected interpretation of the law.

4. Practical Implications

Arbitrators must clearly raise and allow submissions on all material points. Contractual clauses limiting liability must use explicit, unequivocal wording to negate standard legal remedies for breach. This case emphasizes courts’ reluctance to interpret ambiguous clauses as absolving parties of accrued liabilities without clear language.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL

In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL

In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.

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