Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

BILLS OF LADING – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION

This legal update sets out the frequently asked questions on matters relating to  Bills of Lading (“BLs”).

What are bills of lading (“BLs”) and its legal function?

  • BLs serve 3 important functions:
  • Document of title of the cargo laden on board of the vessel;
  • Contract of carriage; and
  • Receipt of goods carried on vessel.

What are the laws the governed BLs in Malaysia?

  • States other than Malacca, Penang, Sabah & Sarawak – The United Kingdom Bills of Lading Act 1855
  • Malacca, Penang, Sabah & Sarawak – The United Kingdom Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992

Why UK statutes apply?

  • This is due to the application of Section 5 of the Civil Law Act 1956.

What is a NVOCC BL?

  • NVOCC is the abbrievation for “Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier”.
  • NVOCC is a carrier that does not own the ship that carries the goods laden on board.
  • The use of NVOCC BL was developed by industry players as part of the move to simplify procedures and requirements to speed up shipping processes.
  • Original BL issued by the shipowner will usualy bear the name of the forwarding agent or booking parties as the shipper and consignee. Instead of having to get shipowners to re-issue a new BL in the name of the actual cargo owners (which will take time), forwarding agent or booking parties will issue an NVOCC BL in their name as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier.

Is NVOCC BLs valid in law?

  • NVOCC has the same function as an ordinary BL issued by the shipowner. The forwarding agent or whoever signs as the carrier assumes the role of a carrier. As carrier, they are legally required to only release cargo on production of original BL.

To whom the BL is to be given to?

  • Carrier would have to issue the BL to the person who has shipped the goods. If the carrier refuses to issue BL, the shipper may demand his goods back.

Can goods be delivered without production of BL?

  • No. Carrier is under a legal duty to deliver goods against the production of the original BL.
  • Carrier is not allowed to release goods against a switch BL.
  • Legally, carrier has no right to alter the BL after the goods have been put on board of the ship.

What are the consequences of so doing?

  • Carrier will be liable for breach of contract of carriage, bailment and/or conversion.

What is a telex release?

  • The practice of producing original physical copy of the BL at the port of discharge might not be feasible in modern shipping context. This is because original BL may not be mailed to the destination quick enough for cargo release. This failure may result in cargo owners incurring detention and demurrage charges at the port of destination.

What is a letter of Indemnity (“LOI”)?

  • A LOI is a private agreement to indeminify carrier if there is a claim for loss due to its release of cargo without production of BL.
  • LOI is only valid between contracting parties to the contract of indemnity.
  • A LOI does not absolve shipowner or carrier from its legal liabilities under the BL.
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