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

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
31 10 月 ,2024 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们