Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

SHIPPING LAW, INTERNATIONAL TRADE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

Q:        What are the changes in the Hague-Visby Rules in Malaysia.

A:         The Hague-Visby Rules were recently on 15.7.2021 incorporated to replace the Hague Rules used in Malaysia since independence in our Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (“the Amended COGSA”). However, not all the provisions in Hague-Visby Rules apply. The following table will set out the changes in Amended COGSA.

Subject Hague Rules (1924) That Apply Before Amendment Hague-Visby Rules (1968) That Apply After the Amendment
Preliminary ·      Drafted in 1924 in Brussels. o  Amendment to the Hague Rules by Brussels Amendments in 1968.
Scope of Application ·      Applies to contract of carriage covered by a bill of lading (“BL”). o  Article X of the Hague-Visby Rules is NOT applicable in Malaysia. The Amended COGSA has inserted Article 1A instead.

o  The new rules apply to sea carriage document (“SCD”) either in electronic or printed form.

o  Sea carriage document (“SCD”) means:

i.      BL;

ii.     Negotiable document of title similar to BL that contains evidence of contract of carriage of goods by sea;

iii.   Non-negotiable BL;

iv.   Non-negotiable documents including consignment note and sea waybill or ship’s delivery order which contains evidence of contract of carriage of goods by sea.
Types of Cargo “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried. “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals.

The Hague-Visby Rules in the Amended COGSA apply to goods carried on deck; although the original Hague-Visby Rules do not.
Proof of Condition of Cargo ·      BL is prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier of the condition of the goods. However, this prima facie evidence can be challenged by evidence stating to the contrary. o  The Amended COGSA uses the term sea carriage document (SCD) rather than BL. SCD covers a wider range of document other than BL.

o  SCD is prima facie evidence of receipt by the carrier of the condition of the goods. No evidence to the contrary shall be admissible to challenge the prima facie evidence when the SCD is transferred to a third party in good faith.
Obligations of Carrier ·      The carrier has no further liability or responsibility in respect of cargo loss or damage after one (1) year. Beginning from the date of delivery. o   The 1-year time bar may be extended if both parties agree.

o   An action for indemnity against a third party may be brought even after one (1) year.
Limitation of Liability ·      If the value of the cargo is not declared before shipment and inserted in the BL, the carrier or the ship is NOT liable for any loss or damage of the goods exceeding 100 sterling pounds per package or unit. o   If the value of the cargo is not declared before shipment and inserted in the SCD, the, the carrier or the ship is NOT liable for any loss or damage of the goods exceeding 666.67 units of account per package OR unit or units of account per kilo of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever higher.

o   The total amount recoverable shall be calculated by reference to the value of the goods at the place the goods are discharged.

o   The value of the goods shall be fixed according to the commodity exchange price, or current market price, or value of the goods of the same kind and quality.

o   Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, the number of packages or units used in the SCD as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed the number of packages or units.

o   The unit of account mentioned is as defined by International Monetary Fund (“IMF”).

o   However, the carrier or the ship is not entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage is caused by willful negligence of the owner.

 
  shall be deemed the number of packages or units.

o   The unit of account mentioned is as defined by International Monetary Fund (“IMF”).

o   However, the carrier or the ship is not entitled to the benefit of limitation of liability if it is proved that the damage is caused by willful negligence of the owner.

Q:        Why Malaysia only applies the Hague-Visby Rules now?

A:         Generally, it is a common knowledge that limitation of liability clause in the Hague Rules favours the carrier or the ship. Malaysia has not applied the Hague-Visby Rules until the year 2020 as we are a maritime nation that favours the right of the shipowner. However, as time passes by, Malaysia has gradually progressed to diversify its economy to place more emphasis on equalizing the rights and liability of both cargo owners and shipowners. This is why the Hague Rules were replaced with a more balanced and up-to-date Hague-Visby Rules. Our Amended COGSA has improvised the Hague-Visby Rules to include Sea Carriage Documents transmitted electronically.

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