Page 18 - 42 SAYURUSARA
P. 18
16 Sayurusara 2020 December
so called CLC in conjunction with the International of preventive measures w.r.t oil spill emergency
Convention on the Establishment of an International (response, readiness of equipment and activation
Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of national oil spill response plan) by MEPA as
of 1971 or the famous Fund Convention with an interim claim before any claims against actual
amendments in 1992 (Protocols) and 2003 are pollution. Finally, the ship owner paid sum of SL Rs.
intended to ensure that adequate compensation is 51,879.992.51 to MEPA on the mutual settlement
available to the victims of a maritime oil spill. The basis negotiated through their Insurance company
CLC provides for the strict liability of the shipowner, and the local legal firm. The ship’s Captain who was
and it is the duty of the shipowner to prove that any under a travel ban issued by the Magistrate Court,
of the (limited) exceptions apply. Actions against Colombo was also prosecuted under the criminal
persons other than the shipowner are channeled liability for negligence and not acting properly to get
back to the shipowner under the CLC and ensures rid of from fire hazard and environmental pollution.
that the shipowner remains solely responsible for oil It was found through the investigations/inquiries
pollution damage. The limitation of the shipowner’s carried by questioning from the captain and the
liability is capped by a calculation relating to crew members that, they have not taken sufficient
the ship’s tonnage although the shipowner may steps to control the fire at the initial stage and their
not limit liability if it is proved that the pollution knowledge on those aspects also on doubt. The case
damage resulted from the shipowner’s personal was filled in the High Court, being the one and only
act, whether recklessly or with intent, and knowing court has the Admiralty Jurisdiction in Sri Lanka
that such damage would probably result. However, based on Article 94 of UNCLOS III, section 12, 38,
this is almost impossible to prove and therefore 48, 53 and 21 to 26 of MPP Act no. 35, 2008 and the
the limit is effectively unbreakable. Compulsory Article 128 (III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
insurance in relation to a single incident grants Act. No.15 of 1979. Accordingly, the Captain plead
the shipowner immunity from further liability and guilty to the charge of discharging oil into the
victims are given the right of direct action against Maritime Zone and paid a total fine of Rs. 12 million
the insurer under the CLC. As the liability of the included Rs.10 million against criminal liability of
shipowner is linked to the ship’s gross tonnage, pollution and Rs. 2 million for the failure of duty to
insurers are able to gauge the ‘worst-case scenario’ inform the coastal state. However, during the legal
which may result from a casualty and allows them process, it is found from the captain’s statements
to allocate risk with a degree of certainty. The that, he has 10 years of experience onboard VLCCs,
Fund Convention works in tandem with the CLC had worked as the Captain of 05 vessels and joined
by providing a fund (commonly known as the IOPC New Diamond on 19th August 2020. Yet he has not
Fund) which is contributed to by importers of oil to worked with the Chief Engineer and the 2nd Officer
provide additional compensation to the victims of prior to this voyage and all the other seamen who
pollution damage where compensation under the were on the ship were new to him.
CLC proves inadequate (Fulbright, 2009). Pending Legal Actions...
Whilst conducting the salvage operation, A claim against marine environmental
there was an observation of oil slick trailed with pollution, demands cumbersome scientific
the tanker said to be of 1km long and 1.5-inch evidence-based report with quantification of the
thickness assumed to be from the Bunker oil used marine pollution damage. The CLC Certificates
for ship’s main engine operation. MEPA along with carried by the Vessel comprehensively cover any
NARA and other subject experts have obtained a claim relative to any actual pollution incident
sample from the site concluded after testing that; involving the Vessel. As Sri Lanka ratified the 1992
a pollution. Although, International Convention CLC Convention, a legitimate claim for pollution
on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, damage or loss can be made taking article IX
2001 (Bunker Convention) is the international law paragraph 1 of CLC 1992 into consideration.
instrument on this behalf. But SL is not a State Party Accordingly, the contracting State to be instituted
to the Bunker Oil convention. Yet, CLC aptly covers before the courts of the relevant contracting State
tanker related bunker spill damages while there where the damage occurred. Therefore, we will
remains no requirement to revert to the Bunker Oil have an adequate protection under the said CLC
Convention.
where the Insurance Club would respond to its
A claim had been forwarded to the ship obligations in accordance with the CLC Certificate.
Understanding the possibility of making such a
owner's P&I Club Insurance company for recovering future claim, GOSL agreed to release the ship. In
the expenses incurred thus far for mobilization
so called CLC in conjunction with the International of preventive measures w.r.t oil spill emergency
Convention on the Establishment of an International (response, readiness of equipment and activation
Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage of national oil spill response plan) by MEPA as
of 1971 or the famous Fund Convention with an interim claim before any claims against actual
amendments in 1992 (Protocols) and 2003 are pollution. Finally, the ship owner paid sum of SL Rs.
intended to ensure that adequate compensation is 51,879.992.51 to MEPA on the mutual settlement
available to the victims of a maritime oil spill. The basis negotiated through their Insurance company
CLC provides for the strict liability of the shipowner, and the local legal firm. The ship’s Captain who was
and it is the duty of the shipowner to prove that any under a travel ban issued by the Magistrate Court,
of the (limited) exceptions apply. Actions against Colombo was also prosecuted under the criminal
persons other than the shipowner are channeled liability for negligence and not acting properly to get
back to the shipowner under the CLC and ensures rid of from fire hazard and environmental pollution.
that the shipowner remains solely responsible for oil It was found through the investigations/inquiries
pollution damage. The limitation of the shipowner’s carried by questioning from the captain and the
liability is capped by a calculation relating to crew members that, they have not taken sufficient
the ship’s tonnage although the shipowner may steps to control the fire at the initial stage and their
not limit liability if it is proved that the pollution knowledge on those aspects also on doubt. The case
damage resulted from the shipowner’s personal was filled in the High Court, being the one and only
act, whether recklessly or with intent, and knowing court has the Admiralty Jurisdiction in Sri Lanka
that such damage would probably result. However, based on Article 94 of UNCLOS III, section 12, 38,
this is almost impossible to prove and therefore 48, 53 and 21 to 26 of MPP Act no. 35, 2008 and the
the limit is effectively unbreakable. Compulsory Article 128 (III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
insurance in relation to a single incident grants Act. No.15 of 1979. Accordingly, the Captain plead
the shipowner immunity from further liability and guilty to the charge of discharging oil into the
victims are given the right of direct action against Maritime Zone and paid a total fine of Rs. 12 million
the insurer under the CLC. As the liability of the included Rs.10 million against criminal liability of
shipowner is linked to the ship’s gross tonnage, pollution and Rs. 2 million for the failure of duty to
insurers are able to gauge the ‘worst-case scenario’ inform the coastal state. However, during the legal
which may result from a casualty and allows them process, it is found from the captain’s statements
to allocate risk with a degree of certainty. The that, he has 10 years of experience onboard VLCCs,
Fund Convention works in tandem with the CLC had worked as the Captain of 05 vessels and joined
by providing a fund (commonly known as the IOPC New Diamond on 19th August 2020. Yet he has not
Fund) which is contributed to by importers of oil to worked with the Chief Engineer and the 2nd Officer
provide additional compensation to the victims of prior to this voyage and all the other seamen who
pollution damage where compensation under the were on the ship were new to him.
CLC proves inadequate (Fulbright, 2009). Pending Legal Actions...
Whilst conducting the salvage operation, A claim against marine environmental
there was an observation of oil slick trailed with pollution, demands cumbersome scientific
the tanker said to be of 1km long and 1.5-inch evidence-based report with quantification of the
thickness assumed to be from the Bunker oil used marine pollution damage. The CLC Certificates
for ship’s main engine operation. MEPA along with carried by the Vessel comprehensively cover any
NARA and other subject experts have obtained a claim relative to any actual pollution incident
sample from the site concluded after testing that; involving the Vessel. As Sri Lanka ratified the 1992
a pollution. Although, International Convention CLC Convention, a legitimate claim for pollution
on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, damage or loss can be made taking article IX
2001 (Bunker Convention) is the international law paragraph 1 of CLC 1992 into consideration.
instrument on this behalf. But SL is not a State Party Accordingly, the contracting State to be instituted
to the Bunker Oil convention. Yet, CLC aptly covers before the courts of the relevant contracting State
tanker related bunker spill damages while there where the damage occurred. Therefore, we will
remains no requirement to revert to the Bunker Oil have an adequate protection under the said CLC
Convention.
where the Insurance Club would respond to its
A claim had been forwarded to the ship obligations in accordance with the CLC Certificate.
Understanding the possibility of making such a
owner's P&I Club Insurance company for recovering future claim, GOSL agreed to release the ship. In
the expenses incurred thus far for mobilization
