Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Maritime and Shipping Law

Malaysian government to enact an Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in Malaysia.

The Shipping & Admiralty Law Committee of the Malaysian Bar has recently approved and recommended a draft Bill to the Malaysian government to enact an Admiralty Jurisdiction Act in Malaysia.

Why is this important?

The powers of the court to arrest ships are not based on laws enacted by our Parliament. Rather, it is based on the laws in the United Kingdom (“UK”). Section 24 of our Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (“CJA 1964”) provides that the jurisdiction of the Malaysian High Court to arrest vessel is same as the jurisdiction and authority of the High Court of Justice in England under the UK Supreme Court Act 1981. When the UK Supreme Court Act 1981 was amended by the UK Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and become the Senior Courts Act 1981, all references to the UK Supreme Court Act 1981 is made to the UK Senior Courts Act 1981 (“UK SCA 1981”).

As the laws in UK continue to develop and new Acts of UK Parliament introduced, these new legislations ostensibly apply to Malaysia via Section 24 of the CJA 1964. For example, the UK Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 (“UK CJJA 1982”). The UK CJJA 1982 was introduced in 1991. Section 26 of the UK CJJA 1982 allows the UK courts to arrest ships not only to satisfy arbitration award but also to judgment of legal proceedings in a foreign country.

Arguably, section 26 of the UK CJJA therefore has the effect of extending the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Courts. It must be remembered, prior to the coming into force of the UK CJJA 1982, an arrest can be made only to provide security in respect of the action in rem. This was decided in the case The Vasso [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 235.

In another words, the court would not exercise the power of arrest “in an action in rem” and use that as security for legal proceedings unrelated to the action in rem eg. legal proceeding in a foreign country.

The problem arises when UK CJJA 1982 extended the jurisdiction in rem in UK (which extension ostensibly apply to Malaysia). This extension of jurisdiction in UK CJJA 1982 is not approved by the Malaysian Parliament. It is an Act of the UK Parliament. Arguably, the application of UK Acts of Parliament in such manner would abrogate the function of our own Parliament to enact legislation. Keeping in mind this function is enshrined in our Federal Constitution.

This is particularly so when matters relating to extension of jurisdiction of our court to arrest vessel should be decided by our own legislature. For example, our Parliament is given the chance to approve the extension of admiralty jurisdiction to arrest ships to satisfy an arbitration award pursuant to Section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2005. Similarly, our Parliament should be given the chance to decide whether or not to extend the power to arrest as security for legal proceedings in a foreign country.

Having gained independence for more than half a century, we believe it is time for the country to chart our own trajectory on matters relating to ship arrest and admiralty jurisdiction of the Malaysian court. Malaysian should be given a chance to decide what is best for our own. Since independence, countries like Singapore, Sri Langka, Hong Kong, Australia etc have long enacted and develop its own admiralty jurisdiction legislation.

We hope the recommended Admiralty Jurisdiction bill by the Malaysian Bar will be seriously considered by our government and Parliament. As lawyers, we believe the enactment of our own version of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act does not hinder our country from absorbing positive influence of evolution of laws of other nations including that of United Kingdom. On the contrary, having our own Admiralty Jurisdiction Act allows our legislature take into consideration laws and regulations of other jurisdiction to strengthen our laws relating to Admiralty Jurisdiction.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们