Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SHIPPING – ADMIRALTY – FLOATING CASINOS AS COLLATERAL: COURT HOLDS GAMING EQUIPMENT FALLS WITHIN SHIP MORTGAGE

1. Summary and Facts

Kfw IPEX-Bank GmbH v Owner of the Vessel “World Dream” [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 137 concerns a dispute over whether the gaming equipment on board the cruise ship World Dream was included in the ship mortgage. The claimant, KfW IPEX-Bank GmbH, a German bank, had financed the construction of the vessel together with other financial institutions. The owner, World Dream Ltd (“WDL”), owned a large cruise ship which had variety of facilities on board such as restaurants, bars, swimming pools, a spa or fitness centre and gaming equipment including slot machines, casino tables and smaller paraphernalia. Later, the parent company entered voluntary winding-up proceedings, triggering an event of default under the facility agreement. This entitled KfW to accelerate the loan. KfW subsequently arrested the vessel in Singapore, obtained judgment, and the ship was sold in 2023 for approximately US$330 million. WDL then applied for a declaration that the on-board gaming equipment did not fall within the scope of the mortgage.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the mortgage created between WDL and KfW under the Facility Agreement, WD Mortgage and WD Deed included to the gaming equipment on board of the vessel.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Singapore High Court held that “ship” includes articles necessary either for navigation or for the prosecution of the vessel’s commercial adventure. As the World Dream’s adventure was to provide passengers with a multi-faceted leisure and entertainment experience, gaming was integral. The equipment was therefore necessary to the prosecution of that adventure and fell within the mortgage.
• The gaming equipment on board the vessel was included in the mortgage as it was part of the ship.
• The gaming equipment qualified as its appurtenances or integral to its function as a casino cruise ship.

4. Practical Implications

• Mortgage security extends beyond navigation gear to cover high-value commercial equipment necessary for a vessel’s intended adventure (e.g. casinos on cruise ships).
• The decisive factor is whether the item is necessary for the vessel’s adventure, not its physical nature.
• Parties should expressly specify valuable movable assets (e.g. gaming, gym, or luxury equipment) in mortgage deeds to minimise disputes.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

MARINE INSURANCE – WAR RISKS, NOT BUREAUCRACY: UK COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS COVER IN INDONESIAN DETENTION CASE

In Delos Shipholding SA & Ors v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE & Ors [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117, the UK Court of Appeal upheld insurers’ liability for the constructive total loss of the Win Win, rejecting reliance on the “customs or quarantine regulations” exclusion in a war risks policy. The Court ruled that detentions arising from Indonesia’s assertion of sovereignty were not “similar” to customs or health-related arrests, confirming a narrow interpretation of the exclusion. It also clarified under the Insurance Act 2015 that nominee directors without decision-making power do not constitute “senior management,” and that the insured had no duty to disclose criminal charges unrelated to the vessel’s operations. The decision provides key guidance on wa…

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MONEYLENDING – ILLEGALITY– COURT OF APPEAL: LICENSED MONEYLENDERS CAN RECOVER VOID LOANS UNDER RESTITUTION

In Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Siah Teong Din [2025] MLJU 2245, the Court of Appeal ruled that a licensed moneylender may recover loan monies under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950, even when the moneylending agreements are void for technical non-compliance with the Moneylenders Act 1951. The Court held that while the agreements were void and unenforceable, they were not illegal, as the lender was duly licensed and the transactions were genuine. Applying the Federal Court’s Detik Ria principles, the Court found that restitution was proportionate and justified, ordering repayment of RM3.38 million to prevent unjust enrichment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TRADEMARKS ACT 1976 – INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND/OR TORT OF PASSING OFF – LEXUS VS LEX: FEDERAL COURT REAFFIRMS EXCLUSIVE TRADEMARK RIGHTS FOR MUNCHY’S

In Munchy Food Industries Sdn Bhd v Huasin Food Industries Sdn Bhd [2022] 1 MLJ 377, the Federal Court restored the High Court’s decision in favour of Munchy’s, ruling that Huasin’s LEX biscuits infringed and passed off the LEXUS trademark. The Court held that “honest concurrent use” cannot be raised where the defendant’s mark is unregistered and unpleaded, and that a trademark owner need not vary its registered mark before commencing infringement or passing off actions. The decision strengthens protection for registered proprietors and highlights that pleadings and exclusivity remain central in trademark disputes.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

BREACH OF CONTRACT – COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS LAD: CONTRACTOR LIABLE FOR DELAY, EXTRA CLAIMS REJECTED

In Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd v Askey Media Technology Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1808, the Court of Appeal upheld the employer’s entitlement to RM768,900 in liquidated damages (LAD) for a 233-day delay in completing a factory project. The Court held that time was of the essence, and the contractor was estopped from denying liability after applying for extensions of time. Applying section 75 of the Contracts Act 1950 and Cubic Electronics, the LAD was found proportionate (~9% of the contract price) and thus reasonable compensation. Claims for additional losses, such as lost rental profits and indemnity to tenants, were barred where an LAD clause exists.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – SOYBEANS, SALVAGE SALES AND SUIT RIGHTS: COURT CLARIFIES CARGO DAMAGE RECOVERY

In AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG & Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc (The “Doric Valour”) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 389, the UK Commercial Court awarded US$293,755.10 for heat-damaged soybeans shipped from Louisiana to Egypt. Although only 70 – 80 mt of beans were physically damaged, 3,600 mt were reasonably treated as distressed and sold in a salvage sale at an 18% discount. The Court held that the assignee of the cargo receiver had valid title to sue, and that the salvage sale was a reasonable act of mitigation. Ancillary claims for warehousing, survey, and transport costs failed for lack of proof.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us