In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.
EN 
ZH 
MY
TORT – DEFAMATION
What is Defamation?
When there is a publication of a statement that lowers the reputation of another person.
How many types of defamation and what are they?
Two
What is Libel?
What is Slander?
Methods of interpreting the words in an allegedly defamatory statement?
What is Innuendo?
E.g. “Mr. A is enjoying his honeymoon with Mrs. X, who he married two weeks ago” may not appear to be defamatory in its ordinary meaning. However, if Mr. A is in fact married to someone other than Mrs. X, then the statement about Mr. A could be defamatory by way of innuendo to those who know the true story about Mr. A.
Elements of Defamation
What are the Defences for Defamation?
Factors that Taken into Account by Court in Assessing Damages
Recent Post
BROAD INTERPRETATION OF ‘SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION’ APPLIES YORK-ANTWERP RULES 2016 GOVERNING GENERAL AVERAGE IN STAR AXE I LLC V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE
In Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342, the court determined that the phrase “any subsequent modification” in the bills of lading extended to the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, not just amendments to the 1994 version. This broad interpretation significantly impacted the general average adjustments, applying the more modern rules outlined in the YAR 2016. The decision emphasize the importance of clear contract language when referring to evolving sets of industry rules, as it directly influences the liabilities and cost-sharing in maritime incidents.
COURT UPHOLDS RECAP EMAIL AS BINDING CONTRACT IN MARITIME DISPUTE: PORALU MARINE V MV DIJKSGRACHT
In the recent case of Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht [2023], the Federal Court of Australia Full Court (FCAFC) ruled that a second recap email, summarizing key terms from negotiations, constituted the binding contract of carriage rather than the subsequent booking note. The court found that the recap email reflected the final agreement between the parties, while the booking note attempted to introduce new terms, including liability limits, which were not mutually agreed upon. This decision emphasizes the importance of recap emails in maritime contracts and reinforces the application of the Hague-Visby Rules in such cases.
CARGO CONUNDRUM: OWNERSHIP, LIABILITY, AND INHERENT VICE IN THE JB COCOA V MAERSK LINE CASE
This case examines the liability of Maersk Line for damages to a shipment of cocoa beans, focusing on whether JB Cocoa had standing as the owner, and whether Maersk fulfilled its obligations under the bill of lading and the Hague Rules. The court also considered the application of the inherent vice defense in relation to the damaged cargo.
ONE-YEAR TIME BAR FOR MISDELIVERY CLAIMS REINFORCED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN FIMBANK PLC V KCH SHIPPING CO LTD (THE GIANT ACE) [2024]
In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF FRAUDULENT VESSEL REGISTRATION: LESSONS FROM COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY V OSTA FLEET
In Cosco Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd, the court examined a vessel registration dispute involving allegations of fraudulent documentation. The Plaintiffs argued that Osta Fleet fraudulently registered the vessel “Dalian Developer” using a falsified Builder’s Certificate. The court’s forensic analysis revealed inconsistencies in the document, ultimately deeming the registration invalid under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The case underscores the importance of due diligence and legal safeguards in vessel registration processes.
WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING
In a recent English Court of Appeal decision, the issue of misdelivery without the presentation of the original bill of lading was brought into focus. The court examined the shipowner’s delivery of cargo without presentation of the bill of lading and the subsequent endorsement to UniCredit Bank. Although a breach was found, the claim was dismissed on causation grounds, as the bank had knowledge of and implicitly authorized the delivery. This case emphasizes the crucial role of bill of lading in maritime transactions.