Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY LAW – MARITIME LABOUR CONVENTION (MLC) 2006 – ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE MLC IN MALAYSIA

The MLC 2006 consolidates 68 international maritime labor legal instruments and recommendations of the International Labor Organization (ILO).

Q: What is the purpose of the MLC 2006?

  1. Codifies seafarers’ rights together with health, safety and employment standards.
  2. It establishes an enforcement and monitoring mechanism for the protection of seafarers ‘rights.

Q: Has Malaysia ratified the MLC 2006?

  • Malaysia ratified the MLC 2006 on the 20th of August 2013. Following the ratification, the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 was amended pursuant to the MSO (Amendment) Act 2016, the 2016 Act aimed to align the provisions set forth in the MSO 1952 with the requirements imposed under the MLC 2006.

Q: What are the amendments introduced under the MSO (Amendment) Act 2016?

  1. Manning and qualification, ensures ships have the necessary volume and professionally ascertained seafarers’ when conducting the voyage.
  2. Conditions of service, creates enforceable rights and obligations between seafarers and their employers.
  3. Wages
  4. Health
  5. Accommodation and Provisions
  6. Conduct and discipline

Q:  Who must comply to these amendments?

  1. Owners
  2. Seafarers’
  3. Ships

Q: Is proper enforcement in place for the amendments under the MSO (Amendment) Act 2016?

  • The Malaysian Shipping Notice issued by the Maritime Department of Malaysia, practices the Declaration of Maritime Labour Compliance (DMLC). Shipowners are required to indicate their compliance with the MLC.
  • The Maritime Department of Malaysia have went to strenuous lengths to incorporate the MLC into the domestic shipping scene in the country. However only with the continued support of seafarers, masters and owners can Malaysia steer herself towards the port of compliance to the MSO 1952.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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 »
17 11 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们