{"id":5998,"date":"2025-11-16T13:04:29","date_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:04:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/?p=5998"},"modified":"2025-11-16T13:04:31","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T05:04:31","slug":"legal-updates-admiralty-jurisdiction-broadens-trust-and-conversion-claims-recognised-in-the-merlion-application","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/legal-updates-admiralty-jurisdiction-broadens-trust-and-conversion-claims-recognised-in-the-merlion-application\/","title":{"rendered":"LEGAL UPDATES \u2013 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION BROADENS: TRUST AND CONVERSION CLAIMS RECOGNISED IN THE MERLION APPLICATION"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1. Summary and Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In Burrows v The Ship \u201cMerlion\u201d [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281, the Federal Court of Australia examined the scope of Admiralty jurisdiction under sections 4(2)(a) and 16 of the Australian Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), in a case concerning competing claims to the ownership and possession of the yacht Merlion<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff, Mr Terence Burrows (\u201cTB\u201d), owned Merlion<\/em> and had agreed to trade it in as part-payment for a new vessel to be built by Pacific Motor Yachts Pty Ltd (\u201cPMY\u201d). After taking possession of Merlion<\/em>, PMY went into liquidation. Its director, Mr Brett Thurley, purported to transfer ownership to Mr Glenn Thurlow (\u201cGT\u201d), who moored the yacht at his private jetty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Believing he remained the true owner, TB commenced in rem proceedings, arrested the vessel, and sought declarations, injunctions, and damages. He alleged that Merlion<\/em> was held on trust for him, that GT had knowingly received trust property, and that GT had committed conversion and detinue. TB also claimed misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law (\u201cACL\u201d). GT challenged the Court\u2019s jurisdiction, arguing the claims were not proprietary maritime claims under s 4(2)(a) of the Admiralty Act 1988 and applied to have them struck out and summarily dismissed, asserting that TB\u2019s pleadings improperly combined in rem and in personam actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Legal Issues<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Whether TB\u2019s claims were properly characterized as proprietary maritime claims within the meaning of Section 4(2)(a) of the Admiralty Act 1988.
\u2022 Whether the Federal Court had admiralty jurisdiction.
\u2022 Whether the arrest of Merlion<\/em> was lawfully effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Court\u2019s Findings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 The Court ruled that TB\u2019s claims did fall within Admiralty jurisdiction, except for the ACL claim and certain procedural requests.
\u2022 The ACL claim did not fall within s 4(2)(a) because it did not concern ownership, possession, or title to a vessel.
\u2022 The Court also struck out TB\u2019s request that the Admiralty Marshal \u201cdeliver possession\u201d of Merlion<\/em> to him, holding that the Marshal merely holds the vessel as an officer of the Court and cannot transfer possession except through orders enforcing judgment.
\u2022 The remaining claims\u2014trust, conversion, detinue, and proprietary maritime claims\u2014were validly brought in rem and fell squarely within the Admiralty Act.
\u2022 Therefore, the arrest of Merlion<\/em> was lawfully effective, and the proceedings were allowed to continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Practical Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Claims involving ownership, title, or possession disputes over vessels fall squarely within proprietary maritime claims under s 4(2)(a) of the Admiralty Act.
\u2022 Admiralty arrest remains available even in complex trust or misappropriation scenarios arising before or after liquidation of a vessel-related company.
\u2022 Plaintiffs must plead carefully\u2014ACL or general commercial claims cannot be mixed into in rem proceedings unless they independently fall within Admiralty jurisdiction.
\u2022 The Admiralty Marshal\u2019s role is custodial only; possession cannot be transferred by request, only by judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Burrows v The Ship \u201cMerlion\u201d [2025] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 281, the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that trust, equitable ownership, conversion, and detinue claims can fall within Admiralty jurisdiction where they relate to a ship\u2019s ownership or possession. However, the Court struck out the Australian Consumer Law claim, finding it a personal cause of action that could not ground an in rem proceeding. The judgment is persuasive for Malaysia, where under section 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and Order 70 of the Rules of Court 2012, Malaysian courts are also likely to recognise trust-based or possessory interests as proprietary maritime claims, while maintaining the need to file personal contractual claims separately.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5999,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3703],"tags":[3713,3731,3661,3730,3660],"class_list":["post-5998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-maritime-shipping-law","tag-admiralty-law","tag-federal-court-of-australia","tag-maritime-claims","tag-proprietary-maritime-rightsk","tag-vessel-arrest"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5998"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6000,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5998\/revisions\/6000"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5999"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yhalaw.com.my\/my\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}