In June 2024, Singapore faced a significant environmental crisis when over 400 tonnes of oil leaked into Singapore waters when a Netherlands-flagged dredger, Vox Maxima, collided with a stationary Singapore-flagged cargo tanker, Marine Honour, in Singapore waters. This Q&A with Managing Partner of PDLegal LLC, Peter Doraisamy, explores the implications of the oil spill from Singapore’s legal framework.

What are the statutes governing oil spills in Singa-pore’s maritime jurisdiction?

In Singapore, oil spills in maritime jurisdiction are governed by several key statutes, namely:

1. Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which generally codifies the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976.
2. Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution) Act 1998 (the “Oil Pollution Act”), which generally codifies the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (“CLC 92”).
3. Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Bunker Oil Pollution) Act 2008, which generally codifies International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 (“Bunker Oil Pollution Convention”).
4. Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act 1990, which enforces various international conventions aimed at the protection of the marine environment and to the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the sea and pollution from ships.
5. High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961, which allows for the right to invoke admiralty jurisdiction as extended by the Oil Pollution Act. The CLC 92 covers oil pollution damage from spills of oil cargo, while the Bunker Oil Pollution Convention addresses pollution from bunker oil spills, so the applicable statute would depend on the type of vessel and oil spilled.

Interestingly, liability for oil pollution is strict. This means that the vessel owner is liable for all damage caused by the oil spill regardless of whether the vessel was blameless. However, if the polluting act was not caused by the vessel, the shipowner can make claims against other parties such as the party that caused the act resulting in the oil spill.

This was the case for Marine Honour, the bunker vessel that carried oil cargo tanks which ruptured and released approximately 400 tonnes of low-sulphur fuel into the sea, due to an allision caused by a dredger, Vox Maxima, which lost engine and steering control.

One of the unfortunate consequences of the allision was that Marine Honour collided with another stationary vessel, which also caused damage. Our firm is currently advising this vessel’s owners on Singapore matters.

Give us an example of penalties and sanctions that can be imposed on individuals or companies responsible for oil spills which may be relevant for the highlighted case above.

While the Oil Pollution Act concerns financial consequences of oil spills and managing the limitations and liability (through, for example, exclusions), the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act is the governing statute for the imposition of sanctions in the form of fines and imprisonment for polluters.

To prevent any overlap, the provision in the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act pertaining to cleanup costs to be recovered from the polluter will not apply if the liability is covered under the Oil Pollution Act.

An example of a penalty can be found in section 7 of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act, which provides that if any discharge of oil or oily mixture occurs from a Singapore ship into any part of the sea or from any ship into Singapore waters, the master, the owner and the agent of the ship, shall be liable on conviction to a fine of between $1,000 and $1,000,000 and/or an imprisonment term of up to two years.