This case note discusses the recent Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Bakri Navigation Co Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 167, which made important points on the legal position of a floating chargor’s dealings with charged assets outside the chargor’s ordinary course of business. In particular, the decision clarifies the relative priorities of the chargor and the third party as well as whether such dealings would crystallise the charge by operation of law. In so doing, the decision also confirms that the floating charge’s flexibility, its greatest strength, might just be its inherent weakness, first conceptually, and then in its effectiveness.