Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY – SHIP ARREST – JUDICIAL SALE PENDENTE LITE – WASTING ASSET

We have in our earlier legal updates https://yhalaw.com.my/shipping-law-ship-arrest-mortgage-action-in-rem-service-within-malaysia set out the reasons when the court can order a sale of the vessel pending litigation (judicial sale pendente lite). One of the important factors is the vessel is deteriorating. What constitutes deterioration which will warrant judicial sale pendente lite?
One of the earliest judicial sale pendente lite ordered by the Malaysian court was the vessel “Yih Shen” on 15.4.1985. The court granted the order for appraisement and sale because “Yih Shen” was deteriorating and would reduce in price if she was allowed to be floating in waters of Penang harbour pending hearing of the main suit. Here are some of the photographs on the condition of Yih Shen in 1985 before sale.

Picture 1 is the view of the ship’s main deck. The main deck forms part of the external hull of the ship. As could be seen from the photograph, the main deck is heavily rusted and corroded.
Picture 2 is a photograph of the bridge and the ship’s navigational system of Yih Shen. Generally, bridge and navigational system is not in use during arrest. As such, they are not crucial in determining whether the vessel is deteriorating or not. Generally, the parts which will deteriorate during the period of arrest are those items that are in use or are subject to the corrosion of sea water condition due to prolonged period of arrest.
Picture 3 is the cargo space ventilator trunk that allows airflow circulation in the cargo hold. This equipment is heavily rusted. Prolonged arrest will result in further corrosion as it is exposed to sea spray, rain and dry salt particles carried through the wind.
Picture 4 is the propeller that is heavily rusted.
Pictures 5 and 6 are the anchor windlass and mooring winches which are poorly maintained. These items are crucial during arrest to prevent situation of “dragging anchor” which would have resulted in collision, grounding or stranding of the ship. Arrested vessels rely heavily on this equipment to stay at anchorage. Badly maintained equipment relating to anchor would pose a serious safety hazard to the ship and the crew on board.
Picture 7 is a photograph of the mooring lines which are heavily corroded. Mooring lines are crucial during arrest. Prolonged arrest is not recommended in this situation.
Picture 8 is the sheave with hook which will only be used during loading and unloading of the cargo. Not relevant when the ship is under arrest.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 12 月 ,2024 尚無留言

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
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们