Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY – SHIP ARREST – SHERIFF’S EXPENSES

What is Sheriff’s expenses when a vessel is arrested in an Admiralty In Rem Proceeding?
When a ship is arrested by court in an admiralty in rem proceeding, she will be placed under the custody of the Sheriff. The Sheriff is usually the Registrar of the High Court. When the ship is arrested, the Sheriff will incur costs and expenses to effect and maintain the arrest i.e. the ship. These expenses include payment of port dues, cost of engaging a sheriff’s agent, payment of food and supplies etc.

Are you saying the Registrar of the Court will pay for the Sheriff’s expenses?
No. Sheriff expenses will usually be advanced by the arresting party (i.e. the plaintiff) pursuant to an undertaking given to the court under O.70 r.9(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2012”). The Sheriff’s expenses advanced by the arresting party may be claimed as the 2nd charge (after statutory claimants) from the proceeds of sale of the ship.

Sheriff’s expenses are ranked as one of the highest claims on the proceed of the sale of the ship. As such, arresting party (usually the plaintiff) and the owner (usually the defendant) must be mindful that prolonged arrest of a ship by the court would result in diminution of value of the ship by reason of mounting sheriff’s expenses. Owner should as soon as it is reasonably practicable post bail bonds to secure release of the vessel under arrest. If owner does not do that, the arresting party should quickly apply to court to have the vessel sold by the sheriff by way of judicial sale pendente lite.

The parties must be mindful that ship arrest is a very expensive process. It will be continuing until a sale pendente lite is ordered by the court or when there is a final disposal of the matter by the court.

There are many circumstances where the escalating Sheriff’s expenses have eroded the value of the ship. So much so that there is nothing left for the arresting party. It defeats the purpose of the arrest i.e. to arrest the ship as security for payment of the arresting party’s claim. It is advisable that valuation of the ship should be carried out before an arrest is made. The arresting party must also be mindful of the number of months a ship can be arrested before Sheriff’s expenses erode the value of the vessel so much that there is nothing left for the plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff must also be conscious that there could be other interveners’ claims which could be ranked higher than the Plaintiff’s claim. Consult a shipping expert before an arrest is made.

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