Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Maritime and Shipping Law
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

Malaysian government to enact an Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in Malaysia.

The Shipping & Admiralty Law Committee of the Malaysian Bar has recently approved and recommended a draft Bill to the Malaysian government to enact an Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in Malaysia.

Why is this important?

The powers of the court to arrest ships are not based on laws enacted by our Parliament. Rather, it is based on the laws in the United Kingdom (“UK”). Section 24 of our Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that the jurisdiction of the Malaysian High Court to arrest vessel is same as the jurisdiction and authority of the High Court of Justice in England under the UK Supreme Court Act 1981. When the UK Supreme Court Act 1981 was amended by the UK Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and become the Senior Courts Act 1981, all references to the UK Supreme Court Act 1981 is made to the UK Senior Courts Act 1981 (“UK SCA 1981”).

As the laws in UK continue to develop and new Acts of UK Parliament introduced, these new legislations ostensibly apply to Malaysia via Section 24 of the CJA 1964. For example, the UK Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 (“UK CJJA 1982”). The UK CJJA 1982 was introduced in 1991. Section 26 of the UK CJJA 1982 allows the UK courts to arrest ships not only to satisfy arbitration award but also to judgment of legal proceedings in a foreign country.

Arguably, section 26 of the UK CJJA therefore has the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Courts. It must be remembered, prior to the coming into force of the UK CJJA 1982, an arrest can be made only to provide security in respect of the action in rem. This was decided in the case The Vasso [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 235.

In another words, the court would not exercise the power of arrest “in an action in rem” and use that as security for legal proceedings unrelated to the action in rem eg. legal proceeding in a foreign country.

The problem arises when UK CJJA 1982 extended the jurisdiction in rem in UK (which extension ostensibly apply to Malaysia). This extension of jurisdiction in UK CJJA 1982 is not approved by the Malaysian Parliament. It is an Act of the UK Parliament. Arguably, the application of UK Acts of Parliament in such manner would abrogate the function of our own Parliament to enact legislation. Keeping in mind this function is enshrined in our Federal Constitution.

This is particularly so when matters relating to extension of jurisdiction of our court to arrest vessel should be decided by our own legislature. For example, our Parliament is given the chance to approve the extension of admiralty jurisdiction to arrest ships to satisfy an arbitration award pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005. Similarly, our Parliament should be given the chance to decide whether or not to extend the power to arrest as security for legal proceedings in a foreign country.

Having gained independence for more than half a century, we believe it is time for the country to chart our own trajectory on matters relating to ship arrest and admiralty jurisdiction of the Malaysian court. Malaysian should be given a chance to decide what is best for our own. Since independence, countries like Singapore, Sri Langka, Hong Kong, Australia etc have long enacted and develop its own admiralty jurisdiction legislation.

We hope the recommended Admiralty Jurisdiction bill by the Malaysian Bar will be seriously considered by our government and Parliament. As lawyers, we believe the enactment of our own version of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act does not hinder our country from absorbing positive influence of evolution of laws of other nations including that of United Kingdom. On the contrary, having our own Admiralty Jurisdiction Act allows our legislature take into consideration laws and regulations of other jurisdiction to strengthen our laws relating to Admiralty Jurisdiction.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY