1. ) COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO. LTD. 2. ) COSCO SHIPPING LINES (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v EONMETALL SYSTEMS SDN. BHD. PIHAK KETIGA United Motors And Heavy Equipment Co (L.L.C.)

pa-27ncc-1-02-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 March 2026 • PA-27NCC-1-02/2023

Catchwords

These are two suits heard together, arising from a single transaction in 2019. The Defendant: Eonmetall Systems Sdn Bhd ("Eonmetall") received an order for its goods, and shipped those goods from Penang to Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates (UAE) - The goods were shipped on two separate vessels under a single Proforma Invoice No. SPI19-0115 dated 31.1.2019 (the Proforma Invoice). The First Shipment comprised seven 40-foot containers carried by Pacific International Lines Pte Ltd (PIL). The Second Shipment comprised ten 40-foot containers carried by the First Plaintiff: COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd (COSCO1) - Both shipments were consigned to the Third Party: United Motors and Heavy Equipment Co. (L.L.C.) (UMHE) as the named consignee. It is the Second Shipment—carried by COSCO1—that is the subject of both Suit 1 and Suit 70 - The dispute began when UMHE refused to take delivery of both shipments on their arrival at Jebel Ali, claiming it had never placed the order. UMHE said the entire transaction was set in motion without its knowledge or consent, through the actions of one Syed Osama Mohiuddin (Syed) of Eonmetall MENA FZCO (Eonmetall MENA), whom Eonmetall had deployed to promote and sell its products in the UAE. With no consignee willing to accept the Second Shipment, the ten containers remained idle at the Jebel Ali port for over 16 months. They were accumulating demurrage and detention (DND) charges until the goods were auctioned off by the port authority - COSCO1 and the Second Plaintiff: COSCO Shipping Lines (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (COSCO2)—I will refer to them collectively as "Cosco." - Suit 1 (PA-27NCC-1-02/2023) is a shipping case brought by Cosco against Eonmetall. As the shipper named in the Bill of Lading for the Second Shipment, Eonmetall is Cosco's contractual counterpart. Cosco claims the sum of RM1,194,026.10 from Eonmetall—comprising DND charges of RM1,005,355.25 and auction-related charges of RM188,670.85—all of which flowed from the abandonment of the Second Shipment - Eonmetall does not dispute the contract of carriage or its status as shipper. Its defence is that UMHE, as the consignee who refused delivery, should be the one to bear the loss. Eonmetall accordingly joined UMHE as Third Party in Suit 1, seeking a full indemnity from UMHE - Suit 70 (PA-22NCVC-70-05/2020) is a goods-sold-and-delivered case brought by Eonmetall against UMHE. It is the same claim as Eonmetall's Third Party claim against UMHE in Suit 1—that UMHE ordered and must pay for the goods shipped under the Proforma Invoice. UMHE denies that it placed an order for the goods, and counterclaims against Eonmetall for the tort of negligence, asserting that Eonmetall wrongly attributed the transaction to UMHE through the acts of its own agent, Syed. Cosco is not a party to Suit 70 - The central question in Eonmetall’s Third Party claim against UMHE in Suit 1, which is also Eonmetall’s claim against UMHE in Suit 70, is this: did UMHE order these goods? - If UMHE ordered the goods, then UMHE is liable to Eonmetall for the price and must indemnify Eonmetall against Cosco's claim. If UMHE did not order the goods, then the loss falls on Eonmetall—who shipped the goods to an unwilling consignee (UMHE) on the strength of representations made by Syed - Eonmetall says that the order was placed by Syed on UMHE's behalf and that the Proforma Invoice was returned to Eonmetall bearing UMHE's acknowledgement stamp and signature—consistent with the two previous transactions between Eonmetall and UMHE in 2017 and 2018 - UMHE says Syed was Eonmetall's agent, not UMHE's, that its stamp was procured without its authority, and that it knew nothing of the subject 2019 transaction until the carriers notified it of the impending shipments - In Suit 1—should Cosco’s claim against Eonmetall be allowed? Should Eonmetall’s Third Party claim against UMHE be allowed? In Suit 70—should Eonmetall’s claim against UMHE be allowed?

Practice Areas

Admiralty & Shipping Contract Agency

Judges (1)

Kenneth Yoong Ken Chinson St James Delivered

Parties (4)

COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO. LTD Plaintiff COSCO SHIPPING LINES Sdn Bhd Plaintiff EONMETALL SYSTEMS Sdn Bhd Defendant United Motors And Heavy Equipment Co. (l.l.c.) Third Party

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-27ncc-1-02-2023)