Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

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.

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