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  • Bottomry and respondentia (which is no longer applicable in present days);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

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
zh_TWZH
× 联系我们