Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

Sorotan Terkini

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 Tiada Ulasan

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 Tiada Ulasan

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 Tiada Ulasan

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 Tiada Ulasan

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 Tiada Ulasan

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 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami