Dalam kemas kini ini
Summary and Facts
Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v Pemunya-Pemunya Kapal atau Vesel Icon Sophia [2025] 9 MLJ 397 the dispute arose when an accident occurred during an anchor deployment operation involving the plaintiff’s accommodation work barge, Two Eastwind and the defendant’s anchor handling tug supply vessel, Icon Sophia at an offshore oilfield. The defendant had been engaged to assist in deploying eight anchors in a predetermined sequence to stabilize the barge under the supervision of the plaintiff’s marine controller. However, the deployment sequence was altered during operation, and the work proceeded despite prevailing sea currents of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 knots.
On the second day of operations, the tug approached the barge to retrieve the final anchor, but due to the strong current, it was unable to maintain a proper approach. After securing the anchor, the tug had trouble maneuvering away and while attempting to pull off using maximum power, its aft section collided with the barge’s hull, causing physical damage. As a result, plaintiff commenced an action in negligence against the defendant.
Legal Issues
- Whether res ipsa loquitur was applicable under the facts of this case;
- Whether the court was bound to accept the defendant’s expert’s conclusion; and
- Whether the plaintiff had established its quantum of damages as claimed.
Court’s Findings
The Court held that the defendant was liable for the damages arising from the incident. However, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s success on the issue of liability, the plaintiff was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings on the basis that ; –
- Although, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur has been established and that the defendant failed to rebut the inference of negligence;
- However, the court find that the plaintiff has also failed to prove its claims as the evidence submitted was insufficient to support the quantum claimed; and
- Hence, the plaintiff was penalised in costs due to its unreasonable rejection of Calderbank settlement offers made by defendant and therefore was ordered to bear the costs of RM 80,000 as well as reimburse for the defendant’s expert witness expenses while, the defendant were only ordered to pay RM 50,000 for the nominal damages on the liability.
Practical Implications
This decision marks a significant authority on the application of res ipsa loquitur and damages. Whereas:-
- The High Court clarified that the doctrine remains applicable even where explanatory evidence is later introduced by the defendant; and
- It also emphasise that expert evidence is not conclusive and must be grounded in facts; and
- It highlights the importance of strict proof of damages as failure to substantiate loss can drastically reduce recovery.
The case shows that parties in control of operations may be presumed negligence if an accident occurs, unless they can clearly rebut it with evidence.
If you need more information on our legal updates, our Knowledge and Law News Division at lawnews@yhalaw.com.my would be pleased to assist.
Yew Huoi, How & Associates (Law Firm)
Advocates & Solicitors
No. 1, Jalan Riangria 6
Taman Desa Tiara, Off Jalan Klang Lama
58200 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: +603-7971 3191
Fax: +603-7972 9131
Email: enquiry@yhalaw.com.my
Website: https://yhalaw.com.my
©2026. YEW HUOI, HOW & ASSOCIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The contents of this legal update are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion. If you need further advice or explanation on the subject, please contact our firm. Please do not reproduce, transmit or distribute the contents therein in any form, or by any means as Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 restrict such circulation.
Note: This material is intended for general information with regard to the practice of YHA. This profile is not intended to create, and does not create a solicitor-client relationship. If you are interested in having YHA represent you, you must call or visit our office to enable us to discuss the legal matter with you. YHA reserves our right to decline any representation which is in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and/or the regulations therein.