Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

Q:        What are the changes in the Hague-Visby Rules in Malaysia.

A:         The Hague-Visby Rules were recently on 15.7.2021 incorporated to replace the Hague Rules used in Malaysia since independence in our Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (“the Amended COGSA”). However, not all the provisions in Hague-Visby Rules apply. The following table will set out the changes in Amended COGSA.

Subject Hague Rules (1924) That Apply Before Amendment Hague-Visby Rules (1968) That Apply After the Amendment
Preliminary ·      Drafted in 1924 in Brussels. o  Amendment to the Hague Rules by Brussels Amendments in 1968.
Scope of Application ·      Applies to contract of carriage covered by a bill of lading (“BL”). Article X of the Hague-Visby Rules is NOT applicable in Malaysia. The Amended COGSA has inserted Article 1A instead.

o  The new rules apply to sea carriage document (“SCD”) either in electronic or printed form.

o  Sea carriage document (“SCD”) means:

i.      BL;

ii.     Negotiable document of title similar to BL that contains evidence of contract of carriage of goods by sea;

iii.   Non-negotiable BL;

iv.   Non-negotiable documents including consignment note and sea waybill or ship’s delivery order which contains evidence of contract of carriage of goods by sea.

Types of Cargo “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried. “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals.

The Hague-Visby Rules in the Amended COGSA apply to goods carried on deck; although the original Hague-Visby Rules do not.

Proof of Condition of Cargo ·      BL is prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier of the condition of the goods. However, this prima facie evidence can be challenged by evidence stating to the contrary. The Amended COGSA uses the term sea carriage document (SCD) rather than BL. SCD covers a wider range of document other than BL.

o  SCD is prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier of the condition of the goods. No evidence to the contrary shall be admissible to challenge the prima facie evidence when the SCD is transferred to a third party in good faith.

Obligations of Carrier ·      The carrier has no further liability or responsibility in respect of cargo loss or damage after one (1) year. Beginning from the date of delivery. o   The 1-year time bar may be extended if both parties agree.

o   An action for indemnity against a third party may be brought even after one (1) year.

Limitation of Liability ·      If the value of the cargo is not declared before shipment and inserted in the BL, the carrier or the ship is NOT liable for any loss or damage of the goods exceeding 100 sterling pounds per package or unit. o   If the value of the cargo is not declared before shipment and inserted in the SCD, the, the carrier or the ship is NOT liable for any loss or damage of the goods exceeding 666.67 units of account per package OR unit or units of account per kilo of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever higher.

o   The total amount recoverable shall be calculated by reference to the value of the goods at the place the goods are discharged.

o   The value of the goods shall be fixed according to the commodity exchange price, or current market price, or value of the goods of the same kind and quality.

o   Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units used in the SCD as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed the number of packages or units.

o   The unit of account mentioned is as defined by International Monetary Fund (“IMF”).

o   However, the carrier or the ship is not entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage is caused by willful negligence of the owner.

 

  shall be deemed the number of packages or units.

o   The unit of account mentioned is as defined by International Monetary Fund (“IMF”).

o   However, the carrier or the ship is not entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage is caused by willful negligence of the owner.

Q:        Why Malaysia only applies the Hague-Visby Rules now?

A:         Generally, it is a common knowledge that limitation of liability clause in the Hague Rules favours the carrier or the ship. Malaysia has not applied the Hague-Visby Rules until the year 2020 as we are a maritime nation that favours the right of the shipowner. However, as time passes by, Malaysia has gradually progressed to diversify its economy to place more emphasis on equalizing the rights and liability of both cargo owners and shipowners. This is why the Hague Rules were replaced with a more balanced and up-to-date Hague-Visby Rules. Our Amended COGSA has improvised the Hague-Visby Rules to include Sea Carriage Documents transmitted electronically.

Recent Post

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 »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us