Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) update

[StevoJH]

That's why the legal challenge that Malaysia preparing seems against both Kongsberg and Norway Government. In the end it is legally binding contract, and one sided contract termination will mostly going to be pursue with legal dispute. Force Majeure claim is in my opinion debatable to be use on matter of export restriction changes. From what I gather from Malaysian forums, previously the choice going to be all MBDA (Exocet and Mica). Then Kongsberg and supported by Norway lobby manage to get NSM contract over Exocet.

In the end I suspect MBDA Exocet will going to reclaim the contract. Malaysia now seems going to pursue legal means to make Kongsberg and Norway paid the business reputation prices, at least for this part of Asia defense market.

Going to start with the fact that I am *not* a Solicitor/Lawyer/Barrister/Legal Professional.

From the way I see it.

A contract only remains legally binding when the laws of the country governing the contract allow the provisions of the contract to be legal.

If the laws change to make provisions of the contract illegal, the contract would become unenforceable.

So basically if this goes to court in Norway, good luck.

 

[Ananda]

The Norwegian government have been evasive and acted in bad faith. Why? The cancellation notice came via the manufacturer (Kongsberg). The Norwegians (Government) were participating in DSA2026 and had government meetings well before that.

I believe this is the ground that some in Malaysian forum.and online media talk on bringin Norway as secondary plaintif. I have seen some dispute that bring sovereign nation as second plaintiff, especially if it is related to changing political/regulation that create decrimental damage to one sided of legal binding contract.

I also not a lawyer, but I suspect Malaysia want to bring the legal challange to arbitrary court first. International commercial contract agreement usually have put an arbitrary court that all parties agree on before signing the contract. This is international contract and usually binding using the nation law that are being choose as arbitrary court in case legal dispute come out.

International commerce usually not going to follow only one country law, but they will agree upon on choosen court that they can consider neutral on handling international commerce dispute. Usually that court reside on a financial center market. For example in Southeast Asia usually Singapore, or Euro can be either London or Paris. I don't know where this Kongsberg vs Malaysia dispute arbitrary court is, but I'm quite certain it will not be Kuala Lumpur or Oslo.

 

[Ananda]

https://bernama.com/bm/am/news.php?id=2561051

Malaysia Bernama News Agency reported 1st LMS Batch 2 being launch from Turkiye Shipyard today. This part of 3 order of LMS batch 2 that base on Turkiye Ada Class Corvette.

LMS in Malaysian navy aim to conduct more as OPV function, but considering LMS Batch 2 have heavier armament then Chinese build LMS Batch 1, I suspect they are more in line as Corvette function. All 3 plan to be launch this year and begin operational hand over to Malaysian Navy by late next year.

Add:

Türkiye Launches First LMS Batch-2 Vessel for Malaysia

The first ship of the LMS Batch-2 project, “TUNKU LAKSAMANA ABDUL JALIL,” was launched in Istanbul at a ceremony graced by Her Majesty the Queen of Malaysia.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

I believe this is the ground that some in Malaysian forum.and online media talk on bringin Norway as secondary plaintif. I have seen some dispute that bring sovereign nation as second plaintiff, especially if it is related to changing political/regulation that create decrimental damage to one sided of legal binding contract.

I also not a lawyer, but I suspect Malaysia want to bring the legal challange to arbitrary court first. International commercial contract agreement usually have put an arbitrary court that all parties agree on before signing the contract. This is international contract and usually binding using the nation law that are being choose as arbitrary court in case legal dispute come out.

International commerce usually not going to follow only one country law, but they will agree upon on choosen court that they can consider neutral on handling international commerce dispute. Usually that court reside on a financial center market. For example in Southeast Asia usually Singapore, or Euro can be either London or Paris. I don't know where this Kongsberg vs Malaysia dispute arbitrary court is, but I'm quite certain it will not be Kuala Lumpur or Oslo.

Malaysia is seeking compensation of more than 1 billion ringgit ($251,76 million) from Norway after Oslo abruptly cancelled export approvals for the NSM.

Here some points of the article:

• Defence Minister Mohamed Khaled ⁠Nordin said a notice had been sent to Norway for the compensation.
• Malaysia would seek compensation for both direct and indirect costs, adding that Malaysia had already paid around 126 million euros ($146,66 million), or 95% of the contract value, for the missile systems.
• Malaysia would also seek additional damages to cover the cost of dismantling and replacing equipment on ships built to accommodate the Norwegian-made missiles, as well as for re-training personnel, he told reporters.

Does this mean they demand financial compensation from Kongsberg, the Norwegian government or both?
https://www.reuters.com/business/ae...5g-dD4VS9E2togySf3_aem_ZOnG4pHq6DqzjS60tU1Teg

 

[Ananda]

Malaysia is seeking compensation of more than 1 billion ringgit ($251,76 million) from Norway after Oslo abruptly cancelled export approvals for the NSM.

US denies role in Norway’s decision to halt missile exports to Malaysia

The US was not involved in the decision by Norway to halt the delivery of its high-tech missile system to Malaysia, said a spokesperson from the American Embassy.

theedgemalaysia.com

US official claim Norway decision to cancell NSM contract is got nothing to do with them. Thus omitted reasoning of US components that make Norway to cancell the export. This in my opinion reduce the force majeure clause, as this shown it is mostly Norway do that on their own.

It is legitimate for Norway to cancel export license. However Malaysia seems want to sue both Kongsberg and Norway base on bad faith intention on breaking the contract. As this contract already years in making, Malaysia already done 95% payment, and before this (at least according Malaysian Media), Norway official shown support, actively accompanied Kongsberg on Malaysian defense exhibition. Thus provide Malaysia as customer, that politically Norway backing Kongsberg on the deal.

 

[John Fedup]

US denies role in Norway’s decision to halt missile exports to Malaysia

The US was not involved in the decision by Norway to halt the delivery of its high-tech missile system to Malaysia, said a spokesperson from the American Embassy.

theedgemalaysia.com

US official claim Norway decision to cancell NSM contract is got nothing to do with them. Thus omitted reasoning of US components that make Norway to cancell the export. This in my opinion reduce the force majeure clause, as this shown it is mostly Norway do that on their own.

It is legitimate for Norway to cancel export license. However Malaysia seems want to sue both Kongsberg and Norway base on bad faith intention on breaking the contract. As this contract already years in making, Malaysia already done 95% payment, and before this (at least according Malaysian Media), Norway official shown support, actively accompanied Kongsberg on Malaysian defense exhibition. Thus provide Malaysia as customer, that politically Norway backing Kongsberg on the deal.

Interesting, so I wonder why Norway would restrict this sale with payment almost completed. Did Norway and Kongsberg fear technology transfer to China? I suspect not or surely the US would have insisted on a cancellation as well. Strange situation.

 

[koxinga]

Interesting, so I wonder why Norway would restrict this sale with payment almost completed. Did Norway and Kongsberg fear technology transfer to China? I suspect not or surely the US would have insisted on a cancellation as well. Strange situation.

Malaysia is a member of the Five Powers Defence Agreement with UK, AU and NZ among others. If there were concerns of that nature, I doubt the three would keep quiet.