Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ANCHORED IN CONTROVERSY: M/T AFRA OAK AND THE COST OF NAVIGATIONAL NEGLIGENCE

Summary and Facts

The case Mercuria Energy Trading Pte v Raphael Cotoner Investments Ltd (M/T “Afra Oak”) [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 609 involves a dispute between the charterer, Mercuria Energy Trading Pte (“ME”), and the owner, Raphael Cotoner Investments Ltd (“RCI”), concerning the detention of the vessel M/T Afra Oak by the Indonesian Navy. The vessel anchored in Indonesian territorial waters near Singapore under the master’s discretion while awaiting further orders from the charterer. The master’s actions led to the vessel’s detention and his subsequent conviction in Indonesian criminal proceedings. The arbitration and appeal focus on whether the master’s actions violated charterer employment orders and if the owner’s defenses under the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 (US COGSA) applied.

Legal issues

i. Did the master breach the charterer’s employment order by anchoring in Indonesian waters?
ii. Can the owner rely on the Hague Rules’ negligent navigation defense under Article IV(2)(a) despite breaching employment orders?
iii. How should the tribunal’s findings be interpreted regarding compliance with local laws and good seamanship?

Court Findings

i. The tribunal interpreted the charterer’s instruction as requiring the vessel to anchor in Singapore EOPL (Eastern Outer Port Limits) but only where it was safe and legal to do so. The master’s decision to anchor in Indonesian waters violated this order due to non-compliance with UNCLOS and Indonesian law.
ii. The tribunal found that the master’s decision demonstrated negligence in navigation and seamanship by anchoring in a prohibited area, which led to the vessel’s detention.
iii. The English High Court upheld the tribunal’s conclusion that the negligent navigation defense under US COGSA Article IV(2)(a) could apply to the owner. The court emphasized that negligent navigation exceptions could protect owners if the error relates to navigation or seamanship, even if it breaches employment orders.

Practical Implication

This decision has significant relevance for maritime operations, particularly in regions like Malaysia, where adherence to local and international laws is critical. The case highlights the importance of clear and precise instructions from charterers, especially in high-traffic and legally sensitive areas like the Straits of Malacca. For Malaysian shipowners and operators, it emphasizes the need for masters to exercise good seamanship and comply with territorial regulations to avoid detention and liability. Furthermore, the case underscores the application of international conventions like UNCLOS and the importance of legal foresight in managing disputes, providing valuable lessons for Malaysia’s maritime industry and regional operations.

Reference cases

a. Mercuria Energy Trading Pte v Raphael Cotoner Investments Ltd (M/T “Afra Oak”) [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 609

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami