Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

1. Summary and Facts:

The case The Lila Lisbon [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, Orion Shipping and Trading Ltd (“OSAT”) agreed to sell the Capesize bulk carrier Lila Lisbon to Great Asia Maritime Ltd (“GAM”) under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) based on the Norwegian Saleform 2012. The delivery deadline was extended multiple times, but OSAT failed to deliver by the final deadline on 15.10.2021. GAM terminated the agreement and sought damages, claiming the difference between the contract price and the vessel’s market price at termination. The tribunal awarded GAM USD1.85 million in damages under Clause 14 of the MOA. OSAT appealed, arguing that such damages were only recoverable in a case of repudiatory breach.

2. Legal issues:

i. Whether a buyer, who lawfully cancels a sale contract under Clause 14 due to the seller’s “proven negligence” in failing to deliver by the cancellation date, is entitled to recover loss of bargain damages in the absence of a repudiatory breach?

3. Court Findings:

• The court ruled in favor of OSAT, setting aside the tribunal’s award of loss of bargain damages.
• There was no positive contractual obligation on OSAT to tender notice of readiness by the cancelling date, only a right for the buyer to cancel if delivery was not made.
• Clause 14B of the MOA did not automatically entitle the buyer to loss of bargain damages unless the seller was in repudiatory breach.
• The failure to deliver did not amount to non-delivery under Section 51 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the cancellation right in Clause 14 was a discretionary buyer’s right rather than a seller’s obligation.
• The case was distinguishable from traditional sale of goods disputes where non-delivery gives rise to market loss damages.

4. Practical Implications:

• Buyers relying on a contract’s default clause to recover market loss damages must ensure the clause expressly provides for such a remedy.
• The judgment clarifies that cancellation under an MOA’s default clause does not necessarily equate to repudiatory breach or entitle a buyer to market damages.
• Sellers can benefit from contractual language that limits liability, while buyers should ensure that compensation clauses clearly cover market loss.
• In a rising market, buyers must assess whether waiting to establish a repudiatory breach is necessary before terminating, as a wrongful termination could have legal and financial repercussions.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY