Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

1. Summary and Facts:
The case The Owners And/Or The Demised Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel ‘Winning Loyalty’ V The Owners And/Or The Demised Charterers Of The Property Or Ship Or Vessel ‘Shi Pu 1’ [2020] 11 MLJ 603 relates to an admiralty dispute arose following a collision between the plaintiff’s vessel, Winning Loyalty, and the defendant’s vessel, Shi Pu 1. The plaintiff’s claim for damages amounted to RM1,716,660, leading to the arrest of Shi Pu 1. The defendant, unable to provide alternative security, left the vessel under arrest in open waters, resulting in rapid deterioration and increased maintenance costs. The plaintiff sought an order for the appraisal and sale of the vessel pendente lite (pending litigation) to preserve its value as security for the claim.

2. Legal issues:
i. Whether the court should grant an order for the appraisal and sale of the vessel pendente lite?
ii. Whether the defendant’s inability to provide alternative security justified such an order?

3. Court Findings:
• The High Court granted the application for a pendente lite sale. It found that the defendant’s failure to provide alternative security or maintain the vessel demonstrated a lack of financial capability.
• This rendered the vessel, described as a “wasting asset,” subject to ongoing depreciation in value, further jeopardizing the plaintiff’s claim security.
• The court emphasized that the need to preserve the security value outweighed the potential prejudice to the defendant. It rejected the argument that the application was premature, stating that such an order could be made even in the absence of a statement of claim.

4. Practical Implications:
This decision reaffirms the importance of proactive management of arrested vessels. Shipowners must recognize that courts prioritize protecting the value of the plaintiff’s claim security over potential prejudice to the defendant. The ruling serves as a reminder that failure to provide security or adequately maintain an arrested vessel may result in its judicial sale, especially where its value is rapidly diminishing. This case reinforces the principles of maritime law in ensuring equitable treatment for all parties while safeguarding the economic integrity of claims in admiralty disputes.

5. Reference Case and Legislation:
• The Owners and/or The Demised Charters of The Ship or Vessel ‘WINNING LOYALTY’ v The Owners and/or The Demised Charterers of The Property or Ship or Vessel ‘SHI PU [2020] 11 MLJ 603
• The ‘Myrto’ [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 11 (CA)

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us