Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Shipping Maritime Admiralty

SHIPPING, DEMURRAGE & DETENTION AND MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER

“I have shipped goods from overseas. The carrier arrived during Covid-19 pandemic. Movement Control Order (“MCO”) was implemented. There was ambiguous exemptions and restriction with no clear instruction to enforcement agencies. Movement of non-essential goods was restricted. I was unable to collect my goods from the carrier/warehouse/port. Carrier levied demurrage or detention charges on my goods. “

Photo : Reuters
Many does not know what to do when their shipment goes missing.

Does frustration apply?
Frustration does not apply

Section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”) renders a frustrated agreement void. One of the 3 important elements of frustration is that alleged frustrating event “must be such that renders it radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”. The MCO does not radically alters the salient feature of most contracts of carriage. However, there could be exceptional situation where time of delivery is of the essence for certain types of cargo

Does force majeure apply?
Force majeure only applies if there is such clause in the contract of carriage.

Sample force majeure clause

“No party shall be liable to the other for any failure to fulfill any terms of the agreement if such fulfillment is delayed,hindered or prevented by force majuere including but not limited to Acts of God strikes lockouts riots civil commotion epidemics acts of war or failure to obtain any necessary approval of any local or other appropriate authority or any other circumstances of whatsoever nature beyond the control of the party”.

“Neither party shall be deemed in breach of the Agreement as a result of, or be liable to the others for, any failure, omission or delay in its performance in whole or in part of any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement . . . if such failure, omission or delay arises or results from any cause reasonably beyond, or to be treated as reasonably beyond, the control of that party (any such event being hereafter referred to as ‘Force Majeure’).”

Force majeure applies when delay to vessel (which allows carrier to levy demurrage or detention) was beyond the control of the shipper/consignee.

The MCO which began on 18 March 2020 has gazetted “transport by land, water or air” as essential service. However, the lack of coordination of enforcement agencies has resulted in movement of goods perceived to be non-essential restricted without approval from Ministry of International Trade and Industry (“MITI”). The lack of coordination is evidenced by reports of containers piling up at ports and warehouses. It is for this reason we are of the view that the pandemic, MCO and lack of coordination of enforcement agencies during the initial stage of MCO (which has caused delay to collection of cargo from port/vessel/warehouse) is beyond the control of the shipper/consignee. Force majeure would apply. Carrier is not allowed to levy demurrage or detention.

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