SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEMURRAGE & DETENTION CHARGES

Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEMURRAGE & DETENTION charges

Recently there is a dispute between shipping lines and shippers on landside charges imposed. Shippers (represented by MNSC and FMFF) claimed shipping lines to be “profiteering” from these charges. Two of these charges are demurrage and detention. What are demurrage and detention and whether they are charges valid under the shipping law in Malaysia?

What are demurrage and detention?

Most charterparties will provide agreed lay days for loading and discharging of cargo to be completed. Charterer is required to complete loading and discharge during this period. This period is known as “laytime” or “lay days“.

However, some charterparties will provide for “additional” period (on top of laytime) for charterers to complete loading and discharge on payment of a fixed daily amount. This is termed demurrage. For example, if the agreed laytime in a charterparty is fixed for “3 days after which demurrage at RM1,000.00 for an additional 3 days” and if loading is completed on the 5^th day, the liner is entitled to charge demurrage of RM2,000.00 (being an additional period of 2 days outside laytime to complete the loading operation).

By relying on the above example, what happened if loading cannot be completed on the 6^th days and was completed on the 10^th day. In this situation, the additional days outside the number of days fixed for demurrage is also known as “detention”. Liner is then entitled to be paid “detention charges” or “damages for detention“. On a side note, if demurrage is not provided in a charterparty, any additional days spent to complete loading and discharge will be treated as detention too.

Are demurrage and detention valid charges in Malaysia?

It must be remembered, demurrage and detention are purely creation of contract in English law. These are essentially “liquidated damages” in English law required to be paid in contract as a result of the charterer’s breach for its failure to load or discharge within laytime. In UK, liquidated damages are allowed to be claimed as long as they are not “extravagant and unconscionable” in which event it will be treated as a penalty.

However, unlike in the UK, there is no distinction between liquidated damages and penalties in Malaysia. Any sum named in a contract as the amount to be paid in case of breach it is to be treated as penalty. In another words, demurrage and detention (which is essentially a sum named in a contract) is treated as a penalty in Malaysia. It follows that liner is only allowed to recover “reasonable compensation” under Section 75 of the Contracts Act notwithstanding what is stipulated as demurrage and detention in the charterparty. Liner is required to prove actual damage suffered before they are entitled to claim demurrage and detention.

Hence, whenever there is a claim for demurrage and detention in Malaysia, Charterer should insist upon the liner to show actual losses. Ask the liner what are the actual losses liner would suffer as a result of delay. Charterer in Malaysia should recognise that there is a difference between shipping law in Malaysia and that of the shipping law in the UK insofar as demurrage and detention is concerned.

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan