In a recent case, the Admiralty Court considered whether, in an admiralty action, an intervener (ie, a party other than the proper defendant) can apply to set aside a warrant of arrest of a vessel on non-traditional grounds. The court's decision shows that it has the inherent power to lift, discontinue or set aside a warrant of arrest on account of the arresting party's failure to comply with an order of the court.
In a recent maritime claim following a collision, the Malaya High Court dismissed the second defendant's application for relief based on, among other things, uncertainty surrounding the identity of the tug involved in the accident. The court found that the determination of which party was liable for the accident was a question of fact to be determined at trial.
A recent high court decision concerned an application with regard to the vessel MT Abbas, which had been arrested under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The court examined whether the respondents had jurisdiction over the controlled article which the second respondent had confiscated, whether the applicant was the owner and operator of the vessel in question and whether the respondents had acted in bad faith.
Malaysian law permits the discharge of cargo on board a ship that is under arrest when the cargo itself is not. The discharge of the cargo will be at the expense of the intervener that asserts its rights over the cargo – namely, the cargo interest. Applications of this nature are usually filed and heard on an urgent basis by way of a certificate of urgency.
In the wake of the World Health Organisation's declaration that COVID-19 is now classified as a pandemic, the Malaysian Marine Department (MMD) has issued instructions to shipowners, shipping agents, masters, seafarers, port operators, recognised organisations and the maritime industry. This article examines the MMD's instructions in detail.
The Court of Appeal recently overturned a High Court decision regarding the alleged breach of a contract of carriage. The plaintiff claimed that the carrier had failed to deliver the contracted goods when the original bills of lading had been presented and that this amounted to a fundamental breach of the underlying contract. Although the High Court had held that the defendant-carrier had not breached the contract, the Court of Appeal found that the High Court had erred in respect of its findings with respect to liability and quantum.
In a recent case, a plaintiff claimed that the defendant's vessel had collided into its vessel. To stop the plaintiff from arresting the vessel, the defendant obtained a letter of undertaking from the London Protection and Indemnity Club. However, notwithstanding the issue of the first letter of undertaking, the plaintiff arrested the vessel. The defendant subsequently asked the court to, among other things, declare the first letter of undertaking binding on the parties and set aside the warrant of arrest.
The government has decided to exempt from its cabotage policy foreign vessels repairing undersea cables at any cable landing station in Malaysian waters. This decision has eliminated restrictions which generated unintended effects and created significant delays and costs in repairing undersea cables. Now, highly specialised, purpose-built vessels can berth in Malaysian waters to repair undersea cables.
A high court recently dismissed a plaintiff's claim against the defendant-carrier for breach of its contract to carry and deliver cargo to the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove its claim. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the plaintiff's claim and found the defendant liable.
A recent case before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur concerned an agreement to deliver cargo from Indonesia to India. The plaintiff, Jiang Xin Shipping Co Ltd, had brought an action against the defendant seeking indemnity for the losses incurred by the plaintiff in connection with an arrest of the plaintiff's vessel on delivery of the cargo.
In a recent case, the plaintiff had instructed the defendant – the owner of the vessel Silver Moon – to head to the South Indian Ocean for cargo operations. Despite having received the instructions, the vessel had to deviate and deal with multiple repair works. In view of the vessel being unseaworthy, the plaintiff contended that the defendant was in repudiatory breach of the time charterparty and had the vessel arrested.
The prime minister recently proposed that Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan be exempted from the National Cabotage Policy, which governs maritime transport between Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia, effective June 1 2017. Under the proposal, foreign ships can transport cargo domestically. This announcement attracted differing opinions regarding its possible impact.
A court recently considered an insurance claim under a marine cargo all-risk insurance policy for damages to a ship unloader crane that had occurred while it was being unloaded onto a barge at West Port, Port Klang. The court ultimately found that the plaintiffs had proven their case on the balance of probability and granted their claim for RM4.5 million, with costs.
In a recent high court case, the plaintiff's notice of lien stipulated that it had exercised a lien over the bunkers, and that the defendants should pay the plaintiff and not the second intervener. The defendants applied to set aside or strike out the plaintiff's subsequent in rem action, as they had no contractual nexus with the plaintiff for the purchase and supply of the bunkers. The court held that since there was no direct contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, a contractual lien did not arise.
The Court of Appeal recently reviewed a high court decision which had dismissed an application by the first defendant for determination of a preliminary issue. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the limitation period in the bill of lading, as provided for in the Hague Rules, was contrary to Section 29 of the Contracts Act 1950 and whether an earlier Court of Appeal decision was binding on the high court.
The courts recently dealt with a case involving competing claims for the vessel Safir Kish 4. After hearing extensive arguments over which party had priority over the ship, the court found the registration and transfer of the ship from the shipbuilder to the first defendant to be null and void. As such, the court ordered the ship to be retransferred and reregistered in the shipbuilder's name.
A recent case before the High Court in Kuala Lumpur concerned the loss of cargo delivered from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. The plaintiff shipper brought the claim against the non-vessel owning common carrier for acting in breach of contract as carrier or duty of care as bailee under the terms of the bill of lading by releasing the shipper's cargo without due production of the original house bills of lading.
The plaintiff in a recent High Court case brought an in rem action against the owners of four vessels for wrongful occupation of its lay-up site and trespassing. The defendants applied to strike out the action, contending that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction. As the plaintiff failed to prove that its claim fell squarely within the court's admiralty jurisdiction, the court struck out the claim with costs.
The plaintiff in a recent case commenced admiralty proceedings against two vessels for unpaid bunkers supplied to those vessels. After both vessels were arrested, the defendant contended that the arrests were flawed, as the plaintiff had not applied to strike out the other vessel from the plural writ after the first vessel was arrested. The court rejected the defendant's argument, holding that the plaintiff need not strike out the other vessel named in the plural writ.
The Admiralty Court recently ruled on the liability of a shipowner in a case involving a ruptured oil pipeline. The court found that the defendant shipowner had failed to discharge its burden to establish that the damages were not caused by its actual fault or privity and that, on a balance of probability, it was liable to the plaintiff for negligence.