Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
News and Updates
This case examines the liability of Maersk Line for damages to a shipment of cocoa beans, focusing on whether JB Cocoa had standing as the owner, and whether Maersk fulfilled its obligations under the bill of lading and the Hague Rules. The court also considered the application of the inherent vice defense in relation to the damaged cargo.
In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.
In Cosco Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd, the court examined a vessel registration dispute involving allegations of fraudulent documentation. The Plaintiffs argued that Osta Fleet fraudulently registered the vessel “Dalian Developer” using a falsified Builder’s Certificate. The court’s forensic analysis revealed inconsistencies in the document, ultimately deeming the registration invalid under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The case underscores the importance of due diligence and legal safeguards in vessel registration processes.
In a recent English Court of Appeal decision, the issue of misdelivery without the presentation of the original bill of lading was brought into focus. The court examined the shipowner’s delivery of cargo without presentation of the bill of lading and the subsequent endorsement to UniCredit Bank. Although a breach was found, the claim was dismissed on causation grounds, as the bank had knowledge of and implicitly authorized the delivery. This case emphasizes the crucial role of bill of lading in maritime transactions.
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.
What is the significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the maritime industry in Malaysia?
Parties who must adhere to International Conventions on Maritime
Labor and the method of enforcement practiced in Malaysia.
The Hague-Visby Rules were recently on 15.7.2021 incorporated to replace the Hague Rules used in Malaysia. However, not all the provisions in Hague-Visby Rules apply. The following table will set out the relevant changes made in the amended COGSA.
When will an arrested vessel become a wasting asset? An analysis of the condition on MV Yih Shen, one of the first few vessels sold by the court in a judicial sale pendente lite proceeding.
What is Admiralty Sheriff’s expenses? Who pays the Sheriff’s Expenses? The pitfall of Admiralty arrest.
The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.
In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.
The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.
The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.
The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.
This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.
EN 
ZH 
MY