Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ARBITRATION – SHIPPING – REPAIR GONE WRONG: CLARIFYING SHIPYARD LIABILITY IN ARBITRATION (“MARE NOVA”)

1. Summary and Facts

Mare Nova Inc v Zhangjiagang Jiushun Ship Engineering Co Ltd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 245, involved a dispute over defective ship repairs performed by Zhangjiagang Jiushun Ship Engineering Co Ltd on the vessel Mare Nova, owned by Mare Nova Inc. Following repair work, damage due to incorrect alignment of the intermediate shaft bearing was discovered shortly after the vessel left the shipyard. Mare Nova initiated arbitration, claiming damages for breach of contract and negligence. The arbitrator partially rejected the claim, citing contractual clauses that purportedly discharged liability once the vessel left the yard. Mare Nova challenged the arbitration award for serious irregularity and error of law.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether the arbitrator committed a serious irregularity under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 by determining an issue (discharge of liability) not previously raised.
• Whether the arbitrator erred in law under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by interpreting contractual clauses (2.1 and 6.3) as discharging the shipyard’s liability immediately after the vessel departed.

3. Court’s Findings

• The UK court upheld the challenge under Section 68, ruling that the arbitrator’s decision to discharge liability without allowing the claimant to address this issue constituted a serious procedural irregularity causing substantial injustice.
• However, the Section 69 appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds, although the court confirmed the arbitrator’s legal interpretation of clauses 2.1 and 6.3 was incorrect. The court clarified that:
    a. Clause 2.1 imposed obligations regarding workmanship quality without limiting liability after delivery for breach of contract.
    b. Clause 6.3 pertained to the period of the shipyard’s responsibility as a bailee, not discharging accrued liabilities for breach of contract.
• The court remitted the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration, instructing the reconsideration to proceed on the corrected interpretation of the law.

4. Practical Implications

Arbitrators must clearly raise and allow submissions on all material points. Contractual clauses limiting liability must use explicit, unequivocal wording to negate standard legal remedies for breach. This case emphasizes courts’ reluctance to interpret ambiguous clauses as absolving parties of accrued liabilities without clear language.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们