Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
Berita Terkini
1. Background: In 3.4.2025, the United States imposed a sweeping 24% ad valorem tariff on virtually all Malaysian exports to the U.S., on top of
This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.
Businesses must be vigilant in protecting their contractual rights, brand identity, and operational control. In this case, unauthorized control over online booking platforms, misleading alterations to the hotel’s digital presence, and continued use of trademarks post-termination led to significant legal consequences. This ruling highlights the importance of clear agreements, strict compliance with contractual obligations, and proactive enforcement of intellectual property rights.
In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.
In the recent case of Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht [2023], the Federal Court of Australia Full Court (FCAFC) ruled that a second recap email, summarizing key terms from negotiations, constituted the binding contract of carriage rather than the subsequent booking note. The court found that the recap email reflected the final agreement between the parties, while the booking note attempted to introduce new terms, including liability limits, which were not mutually agreed upon. This decision emphasizes the importance of recap emails in maritime contracts and reinforces the application of the Hague-Visby Rules in such cases.
This update examines whether a restrictive clause preventing an advocate from practicing law after termination is enforceable. By interpreting Section 28 of the Contracts Act 1950, it highlights that agreements restricting lawful professional practice are generally void, emphasizing the protection of an individual’s right to practice their profession.
This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
A, a director and shareholder of the company, was denied access to inspect the company’s records. Although not involved in daily operations, A wants to determine the value of his shares for a separate lawsuit.
Can he file an application for inspection and appoint lawyers and auditors to do it on his behalf?
I have a sale contract which does not set out terms which should have been there in the first place. For example, it is a contract to purchase electrical items. There is no term that says the electrical items should be in working condition.
What can I do?
I bought a unit of condominium from a developer. The developer was supposed to deliver separate strata title for my unit. That was not done. Years later, I discovered that the land of which the condominium was built was sold to Company Z. Can Company Z claim ownership of the condominium and later have me evicted?
In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.
In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.
In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.
In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.
In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.
In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.
MY 
EN 
ZH