Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

ADMIRALTY – MARINE INSURANCE – CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY

ABC insurance company rejected B’s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.

Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity against the ship owner?

  • Generally, the right of contribution and indemnity of the insurer arises from its right of subrogation under the law of insurance.
  • In the context of marine insurance, Section 79 of the United Kingdom Marine Insurance Act 1906 (“UK Marine Insurance Act 1906”) provides as follows:

“(1)  Where the insurer pays for a total loss, either of the whole, or in the case of goods of any apportionable part, of the subject-matter insured, he thereupon becomes entitled to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject-matter so paid for, and he is thereby subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of that subject-matter as from the time of the casualty causing the loss.”

How is the UK Marine Insurance Act 1906 applicable in Malaysia?

  • This is because Section 5(1) of the Malaysian Civil Law Act 1956 provides that the law on marine insurance in Malaysia is the same as would be administered in England.

Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity before paying the B’s loss?

  • There are 2 conflicting decisions of the High Court. In Lim Sze Way v Allianz General Insurance Company (M) Bhd (Supreme Power Auto Sdn Bhd & Ors, 3rd Parties) [2020] MLJU 2089, the High Court held that unless the insurance company has

has accepted the insurance claim and subrogated the right of the insured, the insurance company has no cause of action against the 3rd party tortfeasor. In the context of insurance company against 3rd party, the insurance company cannot maintain any other causes of action against the tortfeasor other than by way of subrogation of the right of the insured.

On the contrary, the Sabah High Court had in Sing Yung Steel Sdn Bhd v MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 3046 held that contribution and indemnity can arise in various situation independent of contract. The issue of subrogation is a matter that is to be decided at trial.

The decision in Sing Yung Steel is certainly driven by convenience. This is because if the court eventually decides the insurance company is required to pay for the losses of the insured, the right of subrogation would have arisen. It follows that the insurer is then entitled to seek contribution and indemnity against 3rd party tortfeasor who is liable to the loss in the first place. All these can be dealt with together in the main suit.

Both decisions have its pros and cons. Keeping in mind, a High Court judge is not bound by another High Court judge’s decision (See Sundralingam v Ramanathan Chettiar [1967] 2 MLJ 211 (FC))

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 July ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH