NAORA GLOBAL DMCC v PEMILIK DAN SEMUA PIHAK LAIN TERMASUK PINNACLES SHIPPING FZCO YANG MENDAKWA MEMPUNYAI KEPENTINGAN TERHADAP KAPAL ATAU VESEL MT TOP GRAND DARI PELABUHAN PANAMA

wa-27ncc-38-09-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 October 2025 • WA-27NCC-38-09/2024 • 54 min read

6 cases cited (4 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

f) Pinnacles’ Counterclaim is dismissed; g) Pinnacles shall pay Naora costs fixed at RM 80,000.00 subject to allocatur.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-27ncc-38-09-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Admiralty jurisdiction – Action in rem – Section 20(2) Senior Courts Act 1981 – Section 24(b) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 – Ownership dispute between co-owners – Beneficial ownership – Resulting trust – Constructive trust – Investment Agreement – Clause 2 ownership clause – Intention of parties – Contribution to purchase price – Burden of proof – Section 101 Evidence Act 1950 – Forensic evidence – Fabrication of documents – Admissibility and weight of secondary evidence – Expert witness credibility – Application of foreign law – UAE law – Presumption of similarity with Malaysian law – Equity and restitution – Reimbursement of advance contribution – In personam jurisdiction arising from unconditional appearance – Hybrid claim encompassing proprietary and personal remedies – Maritime ownership and equitable interests – Judicial power to grant declaratory and monetary reliefs in admiralty proceedings.

Practice Areas

Evidence Equity & Trusts

Judges (1)

Ong Chee Kwan Delivered

Counsel (12)

G. Ragumaren & Co Firm Joseph & Partners Firm Khoo Chambers Firm Grace Teoh Counsel Defendant Jeremy M. Joseph Counsel Plaintiff Khoo Guan Huat Counsel Defendant Khoo Yuan Ping Counsel Defendant Naadia Hussain Counsel Defendant Ragumaren Gopal Counsel Defendant Shoban Nair Counsel Defendant Siti Deelora Ahmad Rajkumar Counsel Plaintiff Vinodhini Samuel Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (1)

Naora Global Dmcc Plaintiff

Case Significance

A hybrid admiralty in rem decision resolving a beneficial co-ownership dispute over a vessel by reference to the parties' contributions and their investment agreement, applying resulting and constructive trust principles, and granting declaratory, sale and monetary relief in a 30:70 proportion.

This High Court decision in the Commercial Division at Kuala Lumpur is an admiralty action in rem concerning the beneficial ownership of a vessel. The plaintiff, a Dubai-registered company, claimed to be the beneficial owner of a 51% share in the vessel, asserting that it had contributed some AED 41.9 million towards a purchase price of about AED 81.4 million, while the defendant shipowner denied the plaintiff's ownership and contended that it had funded the purchase in full, either directly or through third-party investors, and that the plaintiff was merely a conduit or 'sleeve' for payments. The issues at trial included whether the plaintiff was a beneficial co-owner and, if so, to what extent, the proper construction of the parties' Investment Agreement, whether a resulting or constructive trust arose in the plaintiff's favour, the burden of proof under section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950, the reliability of forensic and secondary evidence and allegations of fabricated documents, the credibility of the expert witnesses, and the treatment of the applicable UAE law, on which the plaintiff had adduced no expert to counter the defendant's expert. Having weighed the contributions each party had actually made to the purchase price and the terms of the Investment Agreement, the Court determined that the beneficial ownership of the vessel was held in the proportions of 30% to the plaintiff and 70% to the defendant. It declared those beneficial interests, ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the vessel, and directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff an advance contribution of some AED 17.1 million with interest at 5% per annum, to be set off from the defendant's share of the net sale proceeds, together with an account of the vessel's earnings over a defined period and payment to the plaintiff of 30% of any profits. The Court thus reached a proprietary and monetary outcome that reflected the parties' true respective contributions to the acquisition of the vessel.

How did the Court resolve the beneficial ownership of the vessel?

The Court determined that the vessel's beneficial ownership was held 30% by the plaintiff and 70% by the defendant, based on the parties' actual contributions to the purchase price and the terms of their Investment Agreement. It declared those interests, ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the vessel, and made consequential monetary and accounting orders.

What consequential orders did the Court make on the ownership finding?

The Court ordered the immediate appraisal and sale of the vessel, directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff an advance contribution of some AED 17.1 million with interest at 5% per annum to be set off from the defendant's share of the net sale proceeds, and ordered the defendant to account for the vessel's earnings over a defined period and pay the plaintiff 30% of any profits.