Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
What are demurrage and detention and whether they are charges valid under the shipping law in Malaysia? 

SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEMURRAGE & DETENTION CHARGES

SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEMURRAGE & DETENTION charges

Recently there is a dispute between shipping lines and shippers on landside charges imposed. Shippers (represented by MNSC and FMFF) claimed shipping lines to be “profiteering” from these charges. Two of these charges are demurrage and detention. What are demurrage and detention and whether they are charges valid under the shipping law in Malaysia? 

What are demurrage and detention?

Most charterparties will provide agreed lay days for loading and discharging of cargo to be completed. Charterer is required to complete loading and discharge during this period. This period is known as “laytime” or “lay days“.

 However, some charterparties will provide for “additional” period (on top of laytime) for charterers to complete loading and discharge on payment of a fixed daily amount. This is termed demurrage. For example, if the agreed laytime in a charterparty is fixed for “3 days after which demurrage at RM1,000.00 for an additional 3 days” and if loading is completed on the 5th day, the liner is entitled to charge demurrage of RM2,000.00 (being an additional period of 2 days outside laytime to complete the loading operation).

By relying on the above example, what happened if loading cannot be completed on the 6th days and was completed on the 10th day. In this situation, the additional days outside the number of days fixed for demurrage is also known as “detention”. Liner is then entitled to be paid “detention charges” or “damages for detention“. On a side note, if demurrage is not provided in a charterparty, any additional days spent to complete loading and discharge will be treated as detention too.

Are demurrage and detention valid charges in Malaysia?

It must be remembered, demurrage and detention are purely creation of contract in English law. These are essentially “liquidated damages” in English law required to be paid in contract as a result of the charterer’s breach for its failure to load or discharge within laytime. In UK, liquidated damages are allowed to be claimed as long as they are not “extravagant and unconscionable” in which event it will be treated as a penalty.  

However, unlike in the UK, there is no distinction between liquidated damages and penalties in Malaysia. Any sum named in a contract as the amount to be paid in case of breach it is to be treated as penalty. In another words, demurrage and detention (which is essentially a sum named in a contract) is treated as a penalty in Malaysia. It follows that liner is only allowed to recover “reasonable compensation” under Section 75 of the Contracts Act notwithstanding what is stipulated as demurrage and detention in the charterparty. Liner is required to prove actual damage suffered before they are entitled to claim demurrage and detention.

Hence, whenever there is a claim for demurrage and detention in Malaysia, Charterer should insist upon the liner to show actual losses. Ask the liner what are the actual losses liner would suffer as a result of delay. Charterer in Malaysia should recognise that there is a difference between shipping law in Malaysia and that of the shipping law in the UK insofar as demurrage and detention is concerned.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

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