Shipping Maritime Admiralty

SHIPPING, DEMURRAGE & DETENTION AND MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER

“I have shipped goods from overseas. The carrier arrived during Covid-19 pandemic. Movement Control Order (“MCO”) was implemented. There was ambiguous exemptions and restriction with no clear instruction to enforcement agencies. Movement of non-essential goods was restricted. I was unable to collect my goods from the carrier/warehouse/port. Carrier levied demurrage or detention charges on my goods. “

Photo : Reuters
Many does not know what to do when their shipment goes missing.

Does frustration apply?
Frustration does not apply

Section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”) renders a frustrated agreement void. One of the 3 important elements of frustration is that alleged frustrating event “must be such that renders it radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”. The MCO does not radically alters the salient feature of most contracts of carriage. However, there could be exceptional situation where time of delivery is of the essence for certain types of cargo

Does force majeure apply?
Force majeure only applies if there is such clause in the contract of carriage.

Sample force majeure clause

“No party shall be liable to the other for any failure to fulfill any terms of the agreement if such fulfillment is delayed,hindered or prevented by force majuere including but not limited to Acts of God strikes lockouts riots civil commotion epidemics acts of war or failure to obtain any necessary approval of any local or other appropriate authority or any other circumstances of whatsoever nature beyond the control of the party”.

“Neither party shall be deemed in breach of the Agreement as a result of, or be liable to the others for, any failure, omission or delay in its performance in whole or in part of any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement . . . if such failure, omission or delay arises or results from any cause reasonably beyond, or to be treated as reasonably beyond, the control of that party (any such event being hereafter referred to as ‘Force Majeure’).”

Force majeure applies when delay to vessel (which allows carrier to levy demurrage or detention) was beyond the control of the shipper/consignee.

The MCO which began on 18 March 2020 has gazetted “transport by land, water or air” as essential service. However, the lack of coordination of enforcement agencies has resulted in movement of goods perceived to be non-essential restricted without approval from Ministry of International Trade and Industry (“MITI”). The lack of coordination is evidenced by reports of containers piling up at ports and warehouses. It is for this reason we are of the view that the pandemic, MCO and lack of coordination of enforcement agencies during the initial stage of MCO (which has caused delay to collection of cargo from port/vessel/warehouse) is beyond the control of the shipper/consignee. Force majeure would apply. Carrier is not allowed to levy demurrage or detention.

Recent Post

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

Born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage, an individual was deemed illegitimate following their father’s intestate death. The key legal issue is whether this individual can inherit under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA). The DA does not restrict inheritance to legitimate children only; it includes all bloodline descendants. Therefore, the individual qualifies as ‘issue’ and is entitled to inherit their father’s estate despite questions of legitimacy.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

A husband filed for divorce due to living apart from his wife for two years, while the wife attributed the breakdown to adultery, involving the alleged adulteress without seeking damages. This raises questions about the necessity of addressing adultery in divorce when no compensation is sought, as Section 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 emphasizes irretrievable breakdown without fault.

Read More »

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

In a legal spotlight, X’s acquisition of a cloned vehicle unknowingly, due to lapses in the Road Transport Department’s record-keeping, raises questions about statutory duties and public trust. The case underscores the importance of stringent vehicle registry maintenance to prevent ownership of unlawfully modified vehicles.

Read More »

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?