Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

Arkib

LEGAL UPDATES – ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION BROADENS: TRUST AND CONVERSION CLAIMS RECOGNISED IN THE MERLION APPLICATION

In Burrows v The Ship “Merlion” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281, the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that trust, equitable ownership, conversion, and detinue claims can fall within Admiralty jurisdiction where they relate to a ship’s ownership or possession. However, the Court struck out the Australian Consumer Law claim, finding it a personal cause of action that could not ground an in rem proceeding. The judgment is persuasive for Malaysia, where under section 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Order 70 of the Rules of Court 2012, Malaysian courts are also likely to recognise trust-based or possessory interests as proprietary maritime claims, while maintaining the need to file personal contractual claims separately.

ADMIRALTY – SINGAPORE HIGH COURT CLARIFIES RIGHTS OF SUIT UNDER BILLS OF LADING ACT AND WRONGFUL ARREST THRESHOLD IN THE JEIL CRYSTAL

In Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board “Jeil Crystal” v Owners of the Vessel “Jeil Crystal” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 299, the Singapore High Court clarified the operation of the Bills of Lading Act 1992 and the threshold for wrongful arrest. The Court held that Banque Cantonale de Genève (BCGE) ceased to be the lawful holder of the bills of lading once it endorsed and delivered them to its customer, GP Global. Having divested itself of all rights, BCGE had no standing to sue for wrongful switch bills or misdelivery when it arrested the vessel months later. The arrest was found wrongful, as BCGE acted with gross negligence by failing to verify that it possessed the original bills before seeking arrest. This decision reinforces the strict requirement of poss…

BREACH OF CONTRACT – COURT FINDS EDGENTA IN BREACH: SUPPLYING USED LINENS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR UKM HOSPITAL

In Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia v Edgenta Facilities Management Sdn Bhd [2025] 11 MLJ 783, the High Court held that Edgenta breached its laundry services contract with UKM by failing to supply new linens as intended under the agreement. Although the contract did not explicitly use the word “new,” the Court admitted extrinsic evidence under section 92(b) of the Evidence Act 1950 to establish both parties’ common understanding. The Court also upheld UKM’s RM3.99 million penalty as valid and proportionate, finding that the formula including “days delayed” was consistent with the contract and served a legitimate commercial purpose. Edgenta’s counterclaim for wrongful deductions was dismissed for lack of proof.

MARINE INSURANCE – WAR RISKS, NOT BUREAUCRACY: UK COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS COVER IN INDONESIAN DETENTION CASE

In Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE & Ors [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117, the UK Court of Appeal upheld insurers’ liability for the constructive total loss of the Win Win, rejecting reliance on the “customs or quarantine regulations” exclusion in a war risks policy. The Court ruled that detentions arising from Indonesia’s assertion of sovereignty were not “similar” to customs or health-related arrests, confirming a narrow interpretation of the exclusion. It also clarified under the Insurance Act 2015 that nominee directors without decision-making power do not constitute “senior management,” and that the insured had no duty to disclose criminal charges unrelated to the vessel’s operations. The decision provides key guidance on wa…

MONEYLENDING – ILLEGALITY– COURT OF APPEAL: LICENSED MONEYLENDERS CAN RECOVER VOID LOANS UNDER RESTITUTION

In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2025] MLJU 2245, the Court of Appeal ruled that a licensed moneylender may recover loan monies under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, even when the moneylending agreements are void for technical non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951. The Court held that while the agreements were void and unenforceable, they were not illegal, as the lender was duly licensed and the transactions were genuine. Applying the Federal Court’s Detik Ria principles, the Court found that restitution was proportionate and justified, ordering repayment of RM3.38 million to prevent unjust enrichment.

TRADEMARKS ACT 1976 – INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND/OR TORT OF PASSING OFF – LEXUS VS LEX: FEDERAL COURT REAFFIRMS EXCLUSIVE TRADEMARK RIGHTS FOR MUNCHY’S

In Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLJ 377, the Federal Court restored the High Court’s decision in favour of Munchy’s, ruling that Huasin’s LEX biscuits infringed and passed off the LEXUS trademark. The Court held that “honest concurrent use” cannot be raised where the defendant’s mark is unregistered and unpleaded, and that a trademark owner need not vary its registered mark before commencing infringement or passing off actions. The decision strengthens protection for registered proprietors and highlights that pleadings and exclusivity remain central in trademark disputes.

BREACH OF CONTRACT – COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS LAD: CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR DELAY, EXTRA CLAIMS REJECTED

In Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd v Askey Media Technology Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1808, the Court of Appeal upheld the employer’s entitlement to RM768,900 in liquidated damages (LAD) for a 233-day delay in completing a factory project. The Court held that time was of the essence, and the contractor was estopped from denying liability after applying for extensions of time. Applying section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 and Cubic Electronics, the LAD was found proportionate (~9% of the contract price) and thus reasonable compensation. Claims for additional losses, such as lost rental profits and indemnity to tenants, were barred where an LAD clause exists.

MARITIME LAW – SOYBEANS, SALVAGE SALES AND SUIT RIGHTS: COURT CLARIFIES CARGO DAMAGE RECOVERY

In AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG & Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc (The “Doric Valour”) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389, the UK Commercial Court awarded US$293,755.10 for heat-damaged soybeans shipped from Louisiana to Egypt. Although only 70 – 80 mt of beans were physically damaged, 3,600 mt were reasonably treated as distressed and sold in a salvage sale at an 18% discount. The Court held that the assignee of the cargo receiver had valid title to sue, and that the salvage sale was a reasonable act of mitigation. Ancillary claims for warehousing, survey, and transport costs failed for lack of proof.

SHIPPING – ADMIRALTY – FLOATING CASINOS AS COLLATERAL: COURT HOLDS GAMING EQUIPMENT FALLS WITHIN SHIP MORTGAGE

In KfW IPEX-Bank GmbH v Owner of the Vessel “World Dream” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 137, the Singapore High Court ruled that casino gaming equipment on board a luxury cruise ship formed part of the mortgaged vessel. The Court held that under long-standing admiralty principles, “ship” covers not only navigation gear but also items necessary for the vessel’s commercial adventure. As the World Dream was designed as a floating resort with gaming as a central attraction, the slot machines and casino tables were integral to its purpose and thus subject to the mortgage. The decision highlights the wide scope of ship mortgages and the importance of expressly addressing high-value movable assets in financing documents.

ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY