Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

1. Summary and Facts

In Lord Marine Co SA v Vimeksim SRB Doo [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, Owners of MV Lord Hassan applied under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 for an order permitting the sale of a cargo of Ukrainian corn over which they had exercised a contractual lien for unpaid freight. The charterparty lien and LMAA arbitration clause were incorporated into the bills of lading; the BLs were marked freight prepaid but freight had not, in fact, been paid, and the BLs remained in owners’ hands. The cargo, discharged to a warehouse at Iskenderun, Turkey, was deteriorating rapidly. Charterers and receivers did not attend the hearing despite notice.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the cargo was “the subject of the proceedings” so that the court had power under s.44(2) to order interim measures (including sale).
• Whether CPR 25.1 and s.44(3) enabled a sale of perishable/rapidly deteriorating property pending arbitration.
• Effect of freight prepaid notation and the fact owners retained the BLs; whether any lawful BL holder could object; whether possession via receivers’ warehouse affected the lien.

3. Court’s Findings

• The English High Court ordered the sale of the cargo (with an undertaking in damages fortified for USD 75,000).
• The contractual lien was being exercised in support of the arbitral claim, making the cargo the “subject of the proceedings” under s.44(2), and the court could act as it would in legal proceedings. CPR 25.1 allowed an order for perishable property to be sold quickly.
• Evidence showed urgent risk of deterioration (self-heating, mould, infestation), justifying relief under s.44(3) even absent arbitral permission (which existed).
• Because owners retained the BLs, there was no lawful BL holder to object; the freight prepaid stamp did not create an estoppel where freight was in fact unpaid and the BLs never left owners’ hands.
• Storage at the receivers’ warehouse did not negate owners’ possession: for these purposes receivers acted as owners’ agent, so the lien continued.
• The lien could bind third-party cargo; otherwise a lien’s utility would be undermined.
• Undertaking in damages was required and to be fortified for USD 75,000 (P&I LoU or payment into solicitors’ account).

4. Practical Implications

• S.44 AA 1996 remains a potent tool to preserve value where cargo under lien is deteriorating — the court may order interim sale pending LMAA arbitration.
• A “freight prepaid” stamp will not estop owners if freight is unpaid and the BLs never left owners’ possession.
• Possession and lien can subsist even when cargo sits in a receiver-owned warehouse if receivers act as owners’ agent.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL

In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL

In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们