FIMBANK PLC PEMILIK DAN/ATAU PENCARTER DEMIS KAPAL ATAU VESEL NIKA

FIMBANK PLC PEMILIK DAN/ATAU PENCARTER DEMIS KAPAL ATAU VESEL NIKA

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the specific provision in Order 6 rule 7(2) ROC limiting admiralty writ renewals to five is binding, there is no lacuna permitting invocation of Order 92 r 4 to grant a sixth renewal, and the judicial commissioner did not err in refusing extension; appeal dismissed.

Citation
W-02(IM)(ADM)-1031-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: FIMBANK PLC; Respondent / Defendant: Pemilik dan/atau Pencarter Demis Kapal atau Vesel “NIKA” kini dikenali sebagai “BAO LAI”
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Case Number
W-02(IM)(ADM)-1031-06/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal / Grounds of Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision refusing sixth renewal affirmed
Legal Topics
Service in Rem, Extension/renewal of Writ Validity, Order 6 Rule 7(2) Rules of Court 2012, Inherent Jurisdiction / Order 92 Rule 4, Limitation and Succession of Ship Ownership
Source Language
Malay/English
Admiralty and Maritime Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Service in Rem Extension/renewal of Writ Validity Order 6 Rule 7(2) Rules of Court 2012 Inherent Jurisdiction / Order 92 Rule 4 Limitation and Succession of Ship Ownership

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIMBANK PLC

Appellant / Plaintiff

Pemilik dan/atau Pencarter Demis Kapal atau Vesel “NIKA” kini dikenali sebagai “BAO LAI”

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Judgment on Appeal / Grounds of Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may extend the validity of an admiralty writ in rem beyond the five renewals permitted by Order 6 rule 7(2) ROC
  2. 2 Whether the court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 ROC to override a specific limit in the Rules of Court
  3. 3 Whether a lacuna exists in the Rules of Court warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the specific provision in Order 6 rule 7(2) ROC limiting admiralty writ renewals to five is binding, there is no lacuna permitting invocation of Order 92 r 4 to grant a sixth renewal, and the judicial commissioner did not err in refusing extension; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision refusing sixth renewal affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court order dated 12.5.2022 refusing sixth extension of writ in rem affirmed