Ogos 9, 2021
claim, lien, maritime

ADMIRALTY – MARITIME LIEN

Q: What is a Maritime Lien?

Maritime lien has its origin from civil law i.e. the French Code Civil. It is a concept of maritime law.
Maritime lien is different from the common law concept of possessory lien. Strictly speaking, there is no possession in maritime lien.
Rather, maritime lien is a claim or privilege that attaches on a ship regardless of who owns the ship.
Maritime lien can only be enforced by proceeding in rem irrespective of who owns the ship. In another words, it “travels with the ship into whosoever’s possession”.

Q: What type of claim is classed as Maritime Lien?
There are 6 categories of claim classed as maritime lien as follows:

Damage done by a ship (eg. collision);
Salvage;
Seamen’s wages;
Bottomry and respondentia (which is no longer applicable in present days);
Master’s wages; and/or
Master’s disbursements.

Q: The Americans have 7^th category of maritime lien for ship repairer. Can ship repairer enforce maritime lien in Malaysia?

No. As we have earlier stated, maritime lien can only be enforced by proceeding in rem. The categories of maritime lien are governed by the law of which the country the proceeding in rem is brought. If the in rem action is brought in Malaysia, the law on maritime lien in Malaysia applies. This is known as determination by the lex fori (as opposed to lex causae). As the law in Malaysia does not recognize the category of ship repairer having maritime lien, ship repairer cannot enforce their right as maritime lienee in Malaysia.

Q: What is the significant of having a maritime lien?

Maritime lienee can bring an action in rem against a ship irrespective of who owns the ship at the time when the action in rem is filed.
Maritime lienee’s claim is ranked above mortgage claim for payment out of claims in admiralty actions in rem. This is one of the top categories in ranking.

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami