Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Shipping Maritime Admiralty

SHIPPING, DEMURRAGE & DETENTION AND MOVEMENT CONTROL ORDER

“I have shipped goods from overseas. The carrier arrived during Covid-19 pandemic. Movement Control Order (“MCO”) was implemented. There was ambiguous exemptions and restriction with no clear instruction to enforcement agencies. Movement of non-essential goods was restricted. I was unable to collect my goods from the carrier/warehouse/port. Carrier levied demurrage or detention charges on my goods. “

Photo : Reuters
Many does not know what to do when their shipment goes missing.

Does frustration apply?
Frustration does not apply

Section 57 of the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”) renders a frustrated agreement void. One of the 3 important elements of frustration is that alleged frustrating event “must be such that renders it radically different from that which was undertaken by the contract”. The MCO does not radically alters the salient feature of most contracts of carriage. However, there could be exceptional situation where time of delivery is of the essence for certain types of cargo

Does force majeure apply?
Force majeure only applies if there is such clause in the contract of carriage.

Sample force majeure clause

“No party shall be liable to the other for any failure to fulfill any terms of the agreement if such fulfillment is delayed,hindered or prevented by force majuere including but not limited to Acts of God strikes lockouts riots civil commotion epidemics acts of war or failure to obtain any necessary approval of any local or other appropriate authority or any other circumstances of whatsoever nature beyond the control of the party”.

“Neither party shall be deemed in breach of the Agreement as a result of, or be liable to the others for, any failure, omission or delay in its performance in whole or in part of any of the terms or conditions of the Agreement . . . if such failure, omission or delay arises or results from any cause reasonably beyond, or to be treated as reasonably beyond, the control of that party (any such event being hereafter referred to as ‘Force Majeure’).”

Force majeure applies when delay to vessel (which allows carrier to levy demurrage or detention) was beyond the control of the shipper/consignee.

The MCO which began on 18 March 2020 has gazetted “transport by land, water or air” as essential service. However, the lack of coordination of enforcement agencies has resulted in movement of goods perceived to be non-essential restricted without approval from Ministry of International Trade and Industry (“MITI”). The lack of coordination is evidenced by reports of containers piling up at ports and warehouses. It is for this reason we are of the view that the pandemic, MCO and lack of coordination of enforcement agencies during the initial stage of MCO (which has caused delay to collection of cargo from port/vessel/warehouse) is beyond the control of the shipper/consignee. Force majeure would apply. Carrier is not allowed to levy demurrage or detention.

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