You are on page 1of 14


On 11th of April, students of Law of Carriage had participated in a seminar titled “Laws of Shipping
and Admiralty: Are we in sink?” organized by our Law of Carriage lecturer with the help of the
committees. The seminar was divided into three sessions, the first session being “A talk on
Alternative Dispute Resolution for Carriage of Goods by Sea”” which was conducted by Miss
Nivedita Venkatraman who is an International Counsel of Asian International Arbitration Centre.
The second session is a talk on “The Functions of Bills of Lading and its Impact Towards the
Contract of Carriage by Sea” given by Tuan Jeremy Mark Joseph, a lawyer from Bar Council
Shipping and Admiralty Law Committee. The last session of the seminar consisted of a forum that
is based upon “The Legal Reality of Corporate Shipping Environment” which was paneled by the
representatives that is consisted of the legal department of Boustead Heavy Industries. They were
Puan Siti Naim, Cik Siti Zulaika and Puan Noor Yasmin. After the forum, it was followed by a
Q&A session with the speakers. The seminar also included 2 sessions of Kahoot competition
between participants of the seminar. From this seminar, we gained some valuable insights on the
law of carriage in action as we gained information from representatives of the legal field on this
specific law that we had learn in our classroom.

First session

Miss Nivedita who is an experienced counsel as she had handled many disputes relating to this
particular law had shared her knowledge on this. She started off with Marital Claims where she
explained on the admiralty jurisdiction which is provided in Section 24(b) of the Courts of
Judicature Act 1964 where High Court shall include the same jurisdiction and authority in relation
to matters of admiralty as is had by the High Court of Justice in England under the UK Supreme
Court Act 1981. Next, section 21(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that
(2)The questions and claims referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—
(a)any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or to the ownership of any share therein;
(b)any question arising between the co-owners of a ship as to possession, employment or
earnings of that ship;
(c)any claim in respect of a mortgage of or charge on a ship or any share therein;
(d)any claim for damage received by a ship;
(e)any claim for damage done by a ship;
(f)any claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or
in her apparel or equipment, or in consequence of the wrongful act, neglect or default of—
(i)the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship; or
(ii)the master or crew of a ship, or any other person for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults
the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship are responsible, being an act,
neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or
discharge of goods on, in or from the ship, or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of
persons on, in or from the ship;
(g)any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship;
(h)any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use
or hire of a ship;
[F1(j)any claim—
(i)under the Salvage Convention 1989;
(ii)under any contract for or in relation to salvage services; or
(iii)in the nature of salvage not falling within (i) or (ii) above; or any corresponding claim in
connection with an aircraft;]
(k)any claim in the nature of towage in respect of a ship or an aircraft;
(l)any claim in the nature of pilotage in respect of a ship or an aircraft;
(m)any claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance;
(n)any claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or in respect of dock
charges or dues;
(o)any claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship for wages (including any sum allotted
out of wages or adjudged by a superintendent to be due by way of wages);
(p)any claim by a master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursements made on
account of a ship;
(q)any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act;
(r)any claim arising out of bottomry;
(s)any claim for the forfeiture or condemnation of a ship or of goods which are being or have been
carried, or have been attempted to be carried, in a ship, or for the restoration of a ship or any such
goods after seizure, or for droits of Admiralty.
As for cargo claims, it is provided in section 20(2)(g) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 where any
claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in ship and including Section 21 of the Senior Courts
Act 1981. Also, (4) In the case of any such claim as is mentioned in section 20(2)(e) to (r),
(a)the claim arises in connection with a ship; and
(b)the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (“the relevant person”)
was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of,
the ship,an action in rem may (whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on that ship)
be brought in the High Court against—
(i)that ship, if at the time when the action is brought the relevant person is either the beneficial
owner of that ship as respects all the shares in it or the charterer of it under a charter by demise;
(ii)any other ship of which, at the time when the action is brought, the relevant person is the
beneficial owner as respects all the shares in it.

The types of actions mentioned by the speaker are in rem which are the claim against a
res, in personam which is the claim against a named defendant and lastly Maritime Lien which is
a unique charge over res that stays attached even if res is sold to BPFVw/oN.

Next, the beneficial owner was explained based on the case of The 'Evpo Agnic’ where
the purpose of s 21(4) is to give rights of arrest in respect of 'the particular ship’ (category 1),
ships in the ownership of the owners of 'the particular ship’ (category 2) and those who have been
spirited into different legal, ie registered, ownership, the owners of 'the particular ship' retaining
beneficial ownership of the shares in that ship (category 3). Other cases includes The Saudi
Prince and The Aventicum. In a Malaysian decision of Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Owners of
the Ship or Vessel ‘Able Lieutenant’ [2012] 6 MLJ 443 whereby “Both the cases of The 'Saudi
Prince' and The 'Aventicum' show the defendants, the persons who would be liable to the
plaintiffs, were not the registered owners of the ships when arrested. In each case, the plaintiffs
argued, despite the change of the registered owner, beneficial ownership was retained by the
previous owners liable to the plaintiffs. Both cases illustrate the principle that the plaintiffs bear
the burden of proving beneficial ownership only when they want to proceed against a ship not in
the registered ownership of the defendant who would be liable to them on the claim. This is the
only situation where the court would ignore the owner's name listed on the ship's register and look
behind the register to catch the real ship-owner hiding behind the nominee. In all other cases, the
registered ownership of the ship as in the ship's register is paramount”.

Moving on to the writ in rem for cargo claim is shown which is the Form 146. The form is
shown below. The warrant of arrest is stated in Form 147. Warrant of arrest is possible for to be
issued against a foreign ship, with leave of court, provided that if the ship belongs to a port of a
State that has a consulate in Malaysia, notice that the action in rem has been commenced has
been sent to the consul. Also, a warrant of arrest is executed in the same way as a writ is served.
The ship or maritime property described in a warrant is under arrest from the time the warrant is
executed until the ship or maritime property is released by Admiralty Court from arrest or sold by
Order of Court and the leave of court may be required to effect the warrant of arrest. After the
arrest, the ship will be judicially sold by the Court free of all encumbrances. Lastly, the proceeds
of judicial sale of the res are then used to satisfy the Plaintiff's claim and the claims of other
parties, if any, according to an established order of priorities.

The second part of the talk by Miss Nivedita where she then explained on the process of
arbitration which was illustrated based on the chain charterparties where Imlam is the owner and
time chartered, Furnace as the time charterer and voyage chartered, Inferno as voyage chartered
and sub-voyage chartered and lastly Idoncare the sub-voyage chartered and includes the bill of
lading. The arbitration clause in the Time Charterparty which is in the Singapore International
Commercial Court and Singapore Law. Next, the voyage charter party which is between Furnace
Trading Charterer and the Inferno Resources (sub charterer). The bill of lading is also included.
Next, the speaker elaborated on where if a dispute arise between Furnace Trading (claimant) and
Idoncare (respondent), which Charterparty that the B/L incorporated? As for Idoncare, the Bill of
Lading : “All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleav
including the Law and the Arbitration Clause/Dispute Resolution Clause, are herewith
Incorporated. Should be Time Charterparty
 and issued by IMLAM, and Idoncare is bound by
 . The general rule is that Head Charterparty should prevail – the San Nicholas Case
Thus, cannot go to arbitration and have to go to Singapore International Commercial Court (under
Time Charterparty)
 . As for the Furnace trading(claimant), the Bill of Lading consists of “All
terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleav including
the Law and the Arbitration Clause/Dispute Resolution Clause, are herewith Incorporated
 . The
Bill of Lading incorporates the Voyage Charterparty
 . The SLS Everest Case – if there is a time
charterparty and voyage charterparty, the Bill of Lading is presumed to incorporate Voyage
Charterparty. Since there will be a lot of incompatible clauses from the Time Charterparty, if it
were to be incorporated to the Bill of Lading. Example of this will be the usage of the wording of
“Freight” instead of “hire” in the bill of lading.
 Also, the term “Freight” indicates the payment of
the vessel through Voyage Charterparty while “hire” indicates the reliance to Time Charterpaty
Therefore, in a conclusion, the Bill of Lading incorporates Voyage Charterparty and thus can go
to arbitration.

The last part of the talk is where the speaker discussed on the advantages and
disadvantages of arbitration based on five main points which are flexibility, neutrality,
enforceability, finalty, time and lastly, cost. The overview of the Arbitration act was elaborated
whereby the speaker mentioned that it is enforced by judiciary, that is has clear and plain wording
and the English version prevails. It also includes the obligation under the New York Convention.
The Arbitration Act is also based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, English Arbitration Act and New
Zealand Arbitration. Basically, The Arbitration Act 2005 (“2005 Act”) is the primary piece of
legislation regulating Malaysian arbitration. The 2005 Act, principally based on the United Nations
Commission on International Trade Law Model on International Commercial Arbitration
(“UNCITRAL Model Law”),came into force on 15 March 2006. On 8 May 2018, the Arbitration
(Amendment) (No 2) Act 20181 (“Amendment Act”) came into force. The Amendment Act
enhances interim protection measures and confidentiality while minimizing recourse against
arbitral awards.

The amendments represent a significant reform to Malaysian arbitration law. They are the
product of a consistent and continuing effect towards the promotion of “... Malaysia’s profile on
international and regional arena as a safe-seat and arbitration friendly jurisdiction”. The
amendments adopt the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law. The amendments are
firstly, the removal of writing requirement. This amendment removes the positive and evidentiary
writing requirement and seeks to address advances in communication technology. An agreement
to arbitrate may be entered into in any form (including orally) as long as the contents of the
agreement are recorded. There is no longer any requirement for the signature of parties or an
exchange of message between the parties.

Next, is the Interim measures in Sections 11 and 19. The 2018 amendments introduce a
raft of supplementary provisions in relation to the granting of interim measures by both the arbitral
tribunal and the Malaysian High Court. These newly introduced sections, i.e. 19A to 19J, mirror
the provisions in the 2006 amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law regarding interim measures.
The additional provisions establish a regime in respect of requests for interim measures, and
provide useful guidance on the operation, recognition and enforcement of interim orders. Interest
which is one of the key points in the amendment is whereby, issues have recently arisen about
the extent of an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to order non-contractual pre-award interest. The
amended section 33 expressly grants arbitral tribunals the power to award simple or compound
interest both pre- and post-award.

One important amendment to be noted is the Abolition of Sections 42 and 43 of Arbitration

Act 2005. The Malaysian High Court may no longer review awards on questions of law arising out
of an arbitration award. The amendment was prompted by the decision in Far East Holdings Bhd
& Anor v Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang,which expanded the scope for
judicial supervision on domestic arbitral awards through challenges on questions of law. The
Federal Court held that an arbitral award may be challenged in court on any question of law
pursuant to section 42 of the 2005 Act, including those that have been specifically referred to an
arbitrator, which were previously not challengeable.

Therefore, the reforms introduced by the Amendment Act, coupled with the recently
updated 2018 Asian International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, are likely to further enhance
Malaysia’s position as a major hub for dispute resolution in Asia and as an important centre for
international arbitration.

Lastly, it can be seen where Malaysia as ADR hub as it had provided local solutions and
cross-continental resolutions. The Centre has positioned itself to embark on a journey focused
on shaping the global system of conflict resolution. The Asian International Arbitration Centre
has since the auspices of AALCO over four decades ago evolved into a multi-purpose hub for the
ADR community – pioneering initiatives such as the Standard For, Contracts for the construction
industry, and spearheading transformation within the areas of sports and Islamic arbitration. With
a firm footing in the past, the AIAC is ready to expand and become a global hub for dispute
resolution and dispute – standing out to be a catalyst of innovation, capacity building and holistic
alternative dispute management for the industry.
Second session

The second session is specifically on the characteristics of the bill of lading and also including
other documents. It started off with the meaning and definition of bill of lading. A bill of lading is
defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary to be “a document acknowledging the receipt of goods by
a carrier or by the shipper’s agent and the contract for the transportation of those goods for
shipment and that is issued by a person engaged in the business of transporting or forwarding
goods.“ Lord Bramwell defined a bill of lading in Sewell v. Burdickas follows:
“a bill of lading has in the eyes of the law, various aspects:-
I. It is very good evidence of the contract of affreightment, though not the contract itself, for
the contract is usually entered into before the bill of lading is signed.
II. It is a receipt for the goods shipped and contains certain admissions as to their quantity
and condition when put on board.
III. It is a document of title, without which delivery of the goods cannot normally be obtained.

Next, there are various types of Bill of Lading, all deriving their names from their functions
and characteristics. Examples of the function of a Bill of Lading includes, A Straight Bill Of Lading,
which is used when payment has been made in advance of shipment and requires a carrier to
deliver the merchandise to the appropriate party. An Order Bill Of Lading, used when shipping
merchandise prior to payment, requiring a carrier to deliver the merchandise to the importer, and
at the endorsement of the exporter the carrier may transfer title to the importer. Endorsed Order
Bills Of Lading can be traded as a security or serve as collateral against debt obligations.
Characteristically described Bills of Lading includes, On-Board Bill of Lading which denotes that
merchandise has been physically loaded onto a shipping vessel, such as a freighter or cargo
plane. A Received-For-Shipment Bill of Lading denotes that merchandise has been received, but
is not guaranteed to have already been loaded onto a shipping vessel. Such bills can be converted
upon being loaded. A Clean Bill of Lading denotes that merchandise is in good condition upon
being received by the shipping carrier, while A Foul Bill of Lading denotes that merchandise has
incurred damage prior to being received by the shipping carrier.

The bill of Lading states the condition and quantity of goods when they are transferred into
the custody of the carrier. It also states the date on which they were loaded, and will identify the
vessel as well as the ports of loading and discharge. The bill of lading is usually made by the
consignor, i.e. the party who is the current owner of the goods to be loaded onto the vessel. In
doing so, reliance will be placed on the “mate’s receipt”. Bills of lading are issued in sets of three
originals. As soon as the bill of lading is signed, they will be issued to the party handing over
custody of the goods to the carrier. This party is usually the current owner of the goods in question
and is referred to as the “shipper” or the “consignor”. The carrier will usually be the ship-owner,
but this is not always the case. The carrier may have actually chartered or sub-chartered the

Moving on, the speaker had explained on the functions of a bill of lading. Most of the
scholars have agreed that a bill of lading consists of three principal functions which are as
evidence of the contract of carriage, as a document of title and lastly as a receipt. Despite the
general consensus on these three functions of the Bill of Lading, Baughenadded a fourth function.
He stated that a bill of Lading is a potentially transferable carriage contract i.e. the contractual
function of a bill of lading. He posited that it frequently evidenced the terms of the initial contract
of carriage which allows the contract to be passed down the chain of seller, banks and buyers
that may come into existence before the ultimate discharge of the goods.

In Wilson’s words, “the reverse side of every standard liner bill of lading form is to be found
a detailed set of printed contractual terms or of reference to the “long form” bill in which they are
set out in full.” He further emphasized that the accepted view among scholars is that at least so
far as the shipper is concerned, these terms do not constitute the contract of carriage itself, but
merely provide evidence of it. The contract is normally concluded orally long before the bill is
issued, and the terms are inferred from the carrier’s sailing announcements and from any
negotiation with loading brokers before the goods are shipped. However, where goods get lost or
damaged before a bill of lading is issued, the shipper will not be deprived of a remedy for breach
of contract. In the same vein, if the printed terms of the bill of lading which is subsequently issued
do not comply with those of the earlier oral agreement, the shipper is not debarred from submitting
oral evidence to establish the specific terms of that agreement.

For many intents and purposes, possession of a bill of lading is comparable in law to
possession of the goods. According to Payne and Ivamy, It enables the holder to obtain delivery
of the goods at the port of destination and while in transit, it allows him to “deliver” the goods by
simply transferring the bill of lading. These rules are particularly important in C.I.F contracts. Thus
in HORST V. BIDDELL BROTHERS, the Court held that the possession of the bill of lading is in
law equivalent to possession of the goods, and that, under a C.I.F. contract, the seller is entitled
to payment on shipping the goods and tendering to the buyer the document of title. It is important
to note that a copy of the tripartite bill of lading suffice as a good document of title.
A bill of lading in its standard state is not a negotiable instrument. The holder of a bill of lading
who indorses it to an indorsee, cannot therefore give a better title than he himself has. Thus, if he
has no title, he cannot pass one. Therefore when the word “negotiable” is used in relation to a bill
of lading, it simply means it is transferable. It still remains unsettled whether delivery of a bill of
lading which is marked “non-negotiable” transfers title at all.

The speaker then briefed on the negotiable bills of lading. Bill of lading has been evolved
over the years in order to respond the changing business environment. Non negotiable bill of
lading is one of the end results of this evolution. Traditional bill of lading is a document of title so
you can transfer the ownership of the goods to another party by means of endorsement or
delivery. For this reason buyers have to present at least one original bill of lading to the carrier at
the port of discharge. Non negotiable bill of lading is not a document of title. As a result, buyers
do not have to present at least one original bill of lading to the carriers at the port of discharge.
Also, you cannot transfer the ownership of the goods to another party by means of endorsement
or delivery under non negotiable bill of lading. That is why non negotiable bill of lading is called
non negotiable sea waybill. It is not a bill of lading in a traditional sense. Therefore, the main
differences can be seen by way of consignee where the bill of lading can be issued in a negotiable
form. Non negotiable sea waybill cannot be issued in a negotiable form. The buyers name is to
be indicated on the non negotiable sea waybill. Next, in endorsement, only bill of lading can be
endorsed. Non negotiable sea waybill cannot be endorsed. Lastly, the distinction can be seen in
the delivery of goods where under traditional bill of lading buyer have to present at least one
original B/L to the carrier’s agent at the port of discharge. Otherwise they cannot get the goods
unless letter of indemnity is issued. Under non negotiable sea waybill buyers can claim the goods
by confirming their identity.

Next, the speaker then explained the bill of lading as a contract of carriage. The bill of
lading is evidence of the contract of carriage, it is not the contract of carriage itself. That contract
between the carrier and the shipper is created when the goods are loaded on board the ship and
will therefore already exist before the bill of lading is issued. If the cargo were to damaged before
issuing the bill of lading, the shipper will be able to claim under the contract of carriage as if the
bill had been issued. As between a carrier and a consignee, the bill of lading will be the
actual contract of carriage. The contractual carrier under the bill of lading may be the physical
carrier (ship owner or demise charterer) or another party (such as the charterer, or sub charterer).

Bill of lading as a receipt is where it records the date on which the full quantity of goods
were received by the carrier, evidence of the apparent condition and quantity of the goods on
receipt including marks, number, quantity or weight (the “figures”), place of issue and the load
and discharge port(s). English law incorporates the Hague-Visby Rules (“HVR”) by the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act 1992. Article III Rule IV of the HVR provides that the figures on the bill of
lading will be conclusive evidence between the carrier and a third party receiver (who has been
transferred the bill of lading in good faith). It is therefore important for the owner or charterer
member that the bills of lading are issued to describe accurately the goods received on board. It
is also important that a record is made of the cargo condition at the time of receipt by the carrier
– for example, if the goods were loaded in good condition but damaged shortly afterwards by rain,
the bill of lading should be issued clean.

Bill of lading as a document of title is where the rightful holder of a bill of lading has the
right to take possession and delivery of the goods upon surrender of an original bill of lading. This
means a bill of lading is different to other transport documents, such as straight bill, which cannot
be transferred, or a sea waybill, where only proof of identification is required to take delivery. The
HVR does not apply to sea waybills. It should be noted that the right to take delivery of the goods
under a bill of lading (which the ship owner is concerned about) is not the same as taking
ownership of the goods. Ownership is determined by the sale contracts (to which the contractual
carrier is unlikely to be a party). Sometimes a cargo claimant demands delivery of the goods at a
discharge port under a bill of lading and it turns out they are only a party to a sale contract, which
determines they maybe the owner of the goods, but they are not the consignee under the original
bill of lading. In such a case, a party who only has a right under a sale contract but is not the
lawful holder of a bill of lading is not entitled to take delivery of the goods. Lastly, in this session,
the speaker briefly mentioned the relationship between charterparty and bills of lading. The bill of
lading functions are important to bear in mind whenever a charterer is asking the master to do
something regarding delivery of goods and changing details on the bills of lading in exchange for
a letter of indemnity (LOI).
Third session

Boustead Heavy Industries Corporation Berhad (BHIC) is a subsidiary of Boustead

Holdings Berhad, a conglomerate listed on the Main Board of Bursa Securities. Boustead
Holdings Berhad is a subsidiary of the Armed Forces’ Funds (Lembaga Tabung Angkatan
Tentera). BHIC is involved in heavy engineering activities, with shipyards located in Lumut, Pulau
Pinang and Langkawi. BHIC is a company with diverse maritime and aerospace interests in the
defence, enforcement a building of military and commercial vessels. Also, maintenance, repair
and overhaul (MRO) of military and commercial vessels, fabrication of structures and modules for
the oil and gas industry, MRO of electronics, electrical and control systems, engines,
communication equipment and weaponry, MRO of helicopters and submarines, manufacturing of
aerospace components and propellants and also management of Integrated Logistics Support

The core business of BHIC consists of energy, defence & security and commercial. The
energy division is where the fabrication of steel structures and platforms, marine engineering, oil
and gas fabrication, hook-up and commissioning and other services related to oil and gas
industry. As for the defence & security division, BHIC engages in shipbuilding and maintenance,
repair and overhaul (MRO) of naval vessels. In addition, some units are involved in manufacturing
of electronic products and undertake systems design, infrastructure and facilities development,
project management and integration works and services, manufacturing, installation, and
maintenance and repair of electrical and electronic appliances and apparatus. Lastly, the
commercial division is whereby the business units under this segment are principally engaged in
heavy engineering, new building, repair, MRO of commercial and private vessels, provision of
training, and MRO of aircrafts.

Other works consists of building of military and commercial vessels, MRO of commercial
and military vessels, helicopters and submarines, manufacturing of aerospace components and
propellants and lastly fabrication of structures and modules for the oil and gas industry. Next, the
role of BHIC’s group legal department is also discussed. In the agreement vetting and signing, is
to regulate and provide guideline on agreement signing. As for legal advices, they provide
guidelines on seeking legal advices. If required, will seek opinion of external legal counsel. In the
legal action, there is the Dispute Resolution, Litigation and Arbitration.

The role of the group legal department also consists of ensuring documentations are in
order, drafting on the best-interest basis, no exposure to unnecessary and unmitigated risks and
lastly is to provide excellent and timely services to maximise stakeholders’ returns.

The terms of reference includes the laws and regulations in which the law is referred to
Companies Act 2016 and the regulations which is the Corporate Governance. Other legal
reference material includes BHIC Group Policy, Standard Operating Procedures and International
Commercial Terms (INCOTERMS) 2010.

The types of contract dealt by the group legal department of BHIC includes shipbuilding,
maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO), infrastructure and consultancy. Next, on the
shipbuilding aspect, one of the speakers had explained on the shipbuilding flow which consists of
design, material procurement, fabrication: subassemblies, fabrication: units, surface preparation,
painting, outfiting, testing and delivery. Meanwhile, the shiprepair flow begins with planning, rip
out, fabrication, assembly, installment and lastly testing.

The forms of contract consists of Letter of Award where the parties were Government of
Malaysia and BHIC themselves. Next is the contract documents or agreements and lastly
purchase order. The key clauses in BHIC contracts are scope of work which is the description,
delivery and also the duration. The next important clause would be the payment terms which
includes advance payment and also the milestones. Next is the delivery and acceptance which
can be seen in INCOTERMS which were mentioned earlier and ITT which is the Inspection, Tests
and Trials.

Next, liquidated damages is also one of the key clauses in BHIC contracts. This comprises
of delay attributable to the Supplier. Warranty is also one of the key features such as back-to-
back warranty which is the hardware and software. The last but not least is the performance
guarantee which contains the performance bond and the retention sum.

The relational contracts with the Government of Malaysia includes the termination on
National Interest and the special requirements that has to be fulfilled are SL1M, Offset and
Industrial Collaboration Program. The unique terms in shipbuilding and shiprepair contracts are

● Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)

● Harbour Acceptance Test (HAT)
● Sea Acceptance Test (SAT)
● Setting-To-Work (STW)
● Docking for Essential Defects (DED)

The last aspect of the forum was the discussion which close relates to the law pertaining
to our subject which is the relations to seaworthiness. Firstly, in the International Association of
Classification Societies can be seen in Bureau Veritas and China Classification Society. The
technical specifications set out can be seen in the classification notation and the performance
which is the type of engine, speed, and also range. There is also the navigational requirements
under this. Lastly in relation to the seaworthiness, is the energy efficient measures which can be
seen through the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) and also the Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP).

In conclusion, as the participants of this seminar, we have learned a lot of new things about law
of shipping and admiralty. Before this, we merely learn law of carriage through the syllabus that
was provided in the classroom, but through this seminar we were exposed on how the law is
actually applied in the real, legal field. This was shown through the representatives of the group
legal department from Boustead Heavy Industries on how they dealt with the law such as dealing
with the contracts. The panelists of the forum had given us many useful knowledge on not just
how the law is applied but they also gave us tips that would be very useful for any one of us if we
are interested to practice as an in house lawyer that work in such company. All in all we had
acquired many informations that was not obtained during the usual classes that we had and we
believe that these informations would be a great help in regards to our final examinations and
also in the future as well.