Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SHIPPING LAW – SHIP ARREST – MORTGAGE – ACTION IN REM – SERVICE WITHIN MALAYSIA

Q: Can I file a Writ In Rem in Kuala Lumpur and have the ship arrested in Kota Kinabalu?

A: Yes. This is because Section 7(2) of the Courts Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) allows any writ and warrant issued within the High Court Malaya be executed or served anywhere in Malaysia. This would include Sabah and Sarawak.

Cases In Point: Re Aro Co Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 1067 (EWCA); The Monica S [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113; ‘The Fierbinti’ [1994] 3 SLR 864 and Nassau Maritime Holdings Designated Activity Co v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel ‘Cape Lambert’ [2020] 11 MLJ 561

Q: What is a Writ In Rem?

A: A Writ In Rem is a legal document that invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court against “the thing” or “res” in dispute. The thing or res is usually a ship. A Writ In Rem can be distinguished from a normal writ which is issued against a person or body of person. This is also known as a Writ In Personam. A Writ in Rem may be issued even when the res is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It can then be served when the res eventually comes within the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

 

Q: How can I invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court?

A: Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked if the criteria set out in Sections 20 and 21 of the UK Seniors Court Act 1981 (“SCA 1981”) are fulfilled.

Q: My company has failed to pay the loans of the bank in respect of a ship mortgaged to the bank. Can the bank arrest the ship of my company?

A: Yes. Mortgage or charge on a ship falls within the category in Section 20(2)(c) of the SCA 1981. Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked.

Q: What if my company has sold the ship to a new buyer. Can the bank still pursue the claim against the res i.e. the ship?

A: Yes. Mortgage claim falls within the category where an action in rem may be brought against the res in connection with the mortgage. Unlike in a situation of cargo damage claim (which is explained in our previous legal update), the bank does not have to show the owner is liable in personam to pay the loan. Hence, even if the owner of the vessel has changed, an action in rem can still be brought against the res i.e. the ship.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
3 April ,2025 No Comments

ROAD ACCIDENT – INSURANCE COMPANY STRIKES BACK: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ROAD ACCIDENT CLAIM

When a motorcyclist claimed he was knocked down in an accident, the Sessions Court ruled in his favor, holding the other rider fully liable. But the insurance company wasn’t convinced. They appealed, arguing that there was no proof of a collision and even raised suspicions of fraud. The High Court took a closer look – and in a dramatic turn, overturned the decision, dismissed the claim, and awarded RM60,000 in costs to the insurer. This case is a stark reminder that in court, assumptions don’t win cases – evidence does.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CHARTERPARTY – LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHTS: CLARIFYING OWNERS’ RIGHTS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS

In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners’ right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase ‘any amounts due under this charter’ was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

SHIP SALE – LOSING THE DEAL, LOSING THE DAMAGES? THE LILA LISBON CASE AND THE LIMITS OF MARKET LOSS RECOVERY

In “The Lila Lisbon” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 101, the court ruled that a buyer cancelling under Clause 14 of the Norwegian Salesform Memorandum of Agreement is not automatically entitled to loss of bargain damages unless the seller is in repudiatory breach. The case clarifies that failing to deliver by the cancellation date does not constitute non-delivery under the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, as the clause grants the buyer a discretionary right rather than imposing a firm obligation on the seller. This decision highlights the importance of precise contract drafting, particularly in ship sale agreements, where buyers must ensure that compensation for market loss is explicitly provided for.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments

CRIMINAL – KIDNAPPING – NO ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE: COURT UPHOLDS LIFE SENTENCE IN HIGH-PROFILE KIDNAPPING CASE

A 10-year-old child was abducted outside a tuition center, held captive, and released only after a RM1.75 million ransom was paid. The appellants were arrested following investigations, with their statements leading to the recovery of a portion of the ransom money. Despite denying involvement, they were convicted under the Kidnapping Act 1961 and sentenced to life imprisonment and ten strokes of the whip. Their appeal challenged the identification process, the validity of the charge, and the admissibility of evidence, but the court found the prosecution’s case to be strong, ruling that the appellants had acted in furtherance of a common intention and were equally liable for the crime.

Read More »
24 February ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us