Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

Summary and Facts

The case Herculito Maritime Ltd & Others v Gunvor International BV & Others (The “Polar”) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85 involves the vessel MT Polar, seized by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden from 30.10.2010 to 26.8.2011 during its route from St Petersburg to Singapore. The shipowner paid a ransom of USD 7.7 million to secure the vessel’s release. Following this, general average was declared, and the shipowners sought contribution from the cargo interests.

The core issue was whether the cargo interests, as holders of the bills of lading, were liable to contribute to general average for the ransom payment. The cargo interests argued that the shipowners could not recover the ransom from them due to the charterparty terms they claimed had been incorporated into the bills of lading.

What is General Average?

General average is a maritime law principle requiring all parties in a sea voyage (shipowners, cargo owners, and insurers) to proportionally share the costs of any sacrifice or expenditure made for the safety of the vessel and its cargo. For example, if cargo is jettisoned or expenses are incurred to save a vessel during an emergency, the costs are shared by all parties with an interest in the voyage, rather than being solely the responsibility of the affected party.

Key Issues

  1. Liability for Contribution: Are cargo interests liable to contribute to general average for the ransom payment?
  2. Incorporation of Charterparty Terms: Were charterparty terms incorporated into the bills of lading?
  3. Insurance Code or Fund: Was an insurance code or fund created by the charterparty provisions?

Submission Made Before the Court

  1. The shipowner declared general average after paying the ransom, seeking USD 4,829,393.22 from cargo interests. A key issue was whether the ransom payment was within general average scope and if cargo interests were obligated to contribute.
  2. Cargo interests contended that the charterparty, specifically its war risks clause, was incorporated into the bills of lading, raising the question of whether these terms exempt cargo interests from liability under general average.
  3. Cargo interests argued that the charterparty provisions requiring the charterer to pay for war risks and kidnap and ransom insurance created an “insurance code” that precluded claims for general average contribution. This raised the question of whether such an insurance code existed and affected the shipowner’s right to recover under general average.

Court’s Findings

  • The English Supreme Court ruled that the shipowner was entitled to recover the ransom payment under general average, rejecting the cargo interests’ argument that insurance alone should cover the ransom. The court emphasized that general average is a common law right unless expressly waived in the contract, and no such waiver existed in this case.
  • While certain charterparty terms were incorporated into the bills of lading, this did not absolve cargo interests from general average liability. The court ruled there was no need to alter the charterparty terms to exempt cargo interests from liability.
  • The court determined that the charterparty did not establish an insurance code or fund precluding the shipowner from seeking general average contributions. Although the charterparty required charterers to pay additional insurance premiums, this obligation did not relieve cargo interests from contributing to general average.

Conclusion

The English Supreme Court dismissed the cargo interests’ appeal and upheld the shipowner’s right to recover the ransom payment under general average. This decision emphasizes the need for clear contractual language to exclude liabilities under general average and reinforces that incorporating charterparty terms does not automatically exempt cargo interests from general average contributions.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 March ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN