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.
A recent maritime incident brought into play the provisions under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1952 that relate to collisions. The ordinance requires that special inquiries and investigations take place whenever there are shipping casualties. It also makes clear what constitutes a 'shipping casualty' and outlines responsibility for damages.
The Merchant Shipping Order 1952 stipulates that ships must notify the director general of the Marine Department before engaging in certain activities in Malaysian waters. In a recent case the sessions court found Komas Energy responsible for anchoring a ship without proper notification. On appeal, the high court held that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case against the appellant and that the latter had raised reasonable doubt.
On March 1 2014 the Convention on the Limitation of Liability For Maritime Claims 1976, as amended by the 1996 Protocol to Amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, came into force in Malaysia. Prior to this, the 1957 International Convention on the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships was in force.
The High Court recently considered a loan granted to one party to part-finance the purchase of two vessels owned by a second party. As security for the loan, the two vessels were to be mortgaged by way of a third-party mortgage charged to the plaintiff. Some time later, the first party defaulted on its payment and the plaintiff initiated foreclosure proceedings. However, the plaintiff had failed to register the mortgage.
A fire and subsequent explosion during the loading of a cargo of dangerous goods at Port Klang resulted in the loss of both the vessel and its other cargo. In a recent court judgment, the shipper was found liable in negligence to the carrier. The court argued that the shipper owed a reasonable duty of care to the carrier to prevent the dangerous goods from causing or doing injury to the vessel.
The Malaysian courts recently considered the applicability of a plea of limitation under the Hague Rules, as incorporated into national law. The case arose following alleged damage to cargo as a result of faulty refrigeration. The court held that as the plaintiff's claim was brought after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the rules, it was time barred and the plea of limitation was therefore a valid defence.
A Malaysian court recently examined liability for loss caused by the discharge or delivery of cargo without the production of original bills of lading. The court held that the act of discharging cargo belonging to the plaintiff into the hands of a third party at a different destination from that contracted for under the bill of lading was the cause of the loss. The defendant was found to have failed in carrying out its duties as bailee.