Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SHIPPING LAW – SHIP ARREST – MORTGAGE – ACTION IN REM – SERVICE WITHIN MALAYSIA

Q: Can I file a Writ In Rem in Kuala Lumpur and have the ship arrested in Kota Kinabalu?

A: Yes. This is because Section 7(2) of the Courts Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) allows any writ and warrant issued within the High Court Malaya be executed or served anywhere in Malaysia. This would include Sabah and Sarawak.

Cases In Point: Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 1067 (EWCA); The Monica S [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113; ‘The Fierbinti’ [1994] 3 SLR 864 and Nassau Maritime Holdings Designated Activity Co v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel ‘Cape Lambert’ [2020] 11 MLJ 561

Q: What is a Writ In Rem?

A: A Writ In Rem is a legal document that invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court against “the thing” or “res” in dispute. The thing or res is usually a ship. A Writ In Rem can be distinguished from a normal writ which is issued against a person or body of person. This is also known as a Writ In Personam. A Writ in Rem may be issued even when the res is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It can then be served when the res eventually comes within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

 

Q: How can I invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court?

A: Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked if the criteria set out in Sections 20 and 21 of the UK Seniors Court Act 1981 (“SCA 1981”) are fulfilled.

Q: My company has failed to pay the loans of the bank in respect of a ship mortgaged to the bank. Can the bank arrest the ship of my company?

A: Yes. Mortgage or charge on a ship falls within the category in Section 20(2)(c) of the SCA 1981. Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked.

Q: What if my company has sold the ship to a new buyer. Can the bank still pursue the claim against the res i.e. the ship?

A: Yes. Mortgage claim falls within the category where an action in rem may be brought against the res in connection with the mortgage. Unlike in a situation of cargo damage claim (which is explained in our previous legal update), the bank does not have to show the owner is liable in personam to pay the loan. Hence, even if the owner of the vessel has changed, an action in rem can still be brought against the res i.e. the ship.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami