Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ONE-YEAR TIME BAR FOR MISDELIVERY CLAIMS REINFORCED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN FIMBANK PLC V KCH SHIPPING CO LTD (THE GIANT ACE) [2024]

Summary and Facts
FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024] 1 All ER 502 primarily regards the carriage of goods by sea and the time limits for bringing claims related to the misdelivery of cargo. FIMBank plc is the claimant, a bank that financed the purchase of coal. KCH Shipping Co Ltd is the respondent, a demise charterer of the vessel The Giant Ace and the contractual carrier under the bills of lading. The case revolves around 13 bills of lading covering a shipment of 85,510 metric tons of coal from Indonesia to India. The bills were on the Congenbill (1994) form, incorporating the terms of a voyage charterparty governed by English law and subject to the Hague-Visby Rules (which is applicable in Malaysia pursuant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (“COGSA”)). The cargo was discharged in India and stored in a customs bonded stockpile. FIMBank, as the holder of the bills of lading, financed the cargo but was never paid. The cargo was misdelivered to persons who were not entitled to receive it, leading FIMBank to claim damages for misdelivery from the carrier.

Legal Issues

  • The main issue was whether the one-year time bar under the Hague-Visby Rules for bringing claims also applied to claims of misdelivery occurring after discharge of the cargo from the vessel.

Court Findings

  • The court emphasized that Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules had been amended to discharge the carrier from “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods” unless suit is brought within one year of the delivery or the date when the goods should have been delivered.
  • The use of “all liability whatsoever” broadened the scope of the time bar, meaning that it could apply even to misdelivery claims occurring after discharge.
  • The court reviewed the preparatory work (travaux préparatoires) of the Hague-Visby Rules to confirm the intention behind the amendments.
    It found that the purpose was to extend the time bar to cover claims for misdelivery even after the cargo had been discharged, making it clear that misdelivery fell within the one-year time limit.
  • The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, ruling in favor of the carrier (KCH Shipping). The one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules applies to misdelivery claims, even if the misdelivery occurred after the cargo was discharged from the vessel. Since FIMBank had initiated arbitration more than one year after the cargo should have been delivered, its claim was time-barred.

Practical Implications
The amendment gives carriers much stronger legal protection. By applying the one-year time bar to all liabilities, including misdelivery, carriers can more effectively limit their exposure to claims that arise after discharge, particularly in situations where they may not have direct control over the goods. Cargo owners, banks, and other parties with interests in the goods must now be vigilant about ensuring that claims are brought within one year, even if the issue arises after the goods have been discharged.

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