Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

ADMIRALTY – MARITIME LIEN

Q: What is a Maritime Lien?

  • Maritime lien has its origin from civil law i.e. the French Code Civil. It is a concept of maritime law.
  • Maritime lien is different from the common law concept of possessory lien. Strictly speaking, there is no possession in maritime lien.
  • Rather, maritime lien is a claim or privilege that attaches on a ship regardless of who owns the ship.
  • Maritime lien can only be enforced by proceeding in rem irrespective of who owns the ship. In another words, it “travels with the ship into whosoever’s possession”.

Q: What type of claim is classed as Maritime Lien?
There are 6 categories of claim classed as maritime lien as follows:

  • Damage done by a ship (eg. collision);
  • Salvage;
  • Seamen’s wages;
  • Bottomry and respondentia (which is no longer applicable in present days);
  • Master’s wages; and/or
  • Master’s disbursements.

Q: The Americans have 7th category of maritime lien for ship repairer. Can ship repairer enforce maritime lien in Malaysia?

No. As we have earlier stated, maritime lien can only be enforced by proceeding in rem. The categories of maritime lien are governed by the law of which the country the proceeding in rem is brought. If the in rem action is brought in Malaysia, the law on maritime lien in Malaysia applies. This is known as determination by the lex fori (as opposed to lex causae). As the law in Malaysia does not recognize the category of ship repairer having maritime lien, ship repairer cannot enforce their right as maritime lienee in Malaysia.

Q: What is the significant of having a maritime lien?

  1. Maritime lienee can bring an action in rem against a ship irrespective of who owns the ship at the time when the action in rem is filed.
  2. Maritime lienee’s claim is ranked above mortgage claim for payment out of claims in admiralty actions in rem. This is one of the top categories in ranking.

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 »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们