BROAD INTERPRETATION OF ‘SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION’ APPLIES YORK-ANTWERP RULES 2016 GOVERNING GENERAL AVERAGE IN STAR AXE I LLC V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
In Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342, the court determined that the phrase “any subsequent modification” in the bills of lading extended to the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, not just amendments to the 1994 version. This broad interpretation significantly impacted the general average adjustments, applying the more modern rules outlined in the YAR 2016. The decision emphasize the importance of clear contract language when referring to evolving sets of industry rules, as it directly influences the liabilities and cost-sharing in maritime incidents.
COURT UPHOLDS RECAP EMAIL AS BINDING CONTRACT IN MARITIME DISPUTE: PORALU MARINE V MV DIJKSGRACHT
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.
CARGO CONUNDRUM: OWNERSHIP, LIABILITY, AND INHERENT VICE IN THE JB COCOA V MAERSK LINE CASE
This case examines the liability of Maersk Line for damages to a shipment of cocoa beans, focusing on whether JB Cocoa had standing as the owner, and whether Maersk fulfilled its obligations under the bill of lading and the Hague Rules. The court also considered the application of the inherent vice defense in relation to the damaged cargo.
ONE-YEAR TIME BAR FOR MISDELIVERY CLAIMS REINFORCED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN FIMBANK PLC V KCH SHIPPING CO LTD (THE GIANT ACE) [2024]
In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.
ADMIRALTY – MARINE INSURANCE – CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY
ABC insurance company rejected B’s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.
ADMIRALTY LAW – SHIP ARREST – ORDER FOR SALE
When can the court order a sale of vessel?
SHIPPING LAW – SHIP ARREST – MORTGAGE – ACTION IN REM – SERVICE WITHIN MALAYSIA
What can a bank do if a mortgagor cease to pay his/her loan vested in a ship? Can I invoke an admiralty writ in rem in High Court of Malaya but serve and execute them in the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak?
SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEMURRAGE & DETENTION CHARGES
What are demurrage and detention and whether they are charges valid under the shipping law in Malaysia?
ADMIRALTY IN REM – CARGO DAMAGE
“My company shipped steel bars from Port Klang to Kota Kinabalu. The steel bars were discovered damage upon discharge in Kota Kinabalu. Who can we claim against? Can we arrest the shipowner’s vessel?”
SHIPPING, DEMURRAGE & DETENTION AND MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER
The carrier arrived during MCO, and I was unable to collect my goods from the carrier/warehouse/port . What do i do ?
MY 
EN 
ZH