54 Asian Legal Business | November 2024 A New Perspective on Whether Oil Pollution Damage Claims Arising from Ship Collisions Are Limitable Before the Supreme People’s Court’s judgment on CMA CGM Florida —which was listed as one of the Typical Maritime Cases of 2019 by the Supreme People’s Court—the standard practice within China’s judicial system was that Ship Pollution Response Organizations (SPROs) could only file claims for cleanup costs against the spilling ship involved in a collision leading to the oil spill. The spilling ship is not entitled to limitation when facing such a claim from a SPRO. However, once the spilling ship has settled the cleanup costs with the SPRO and seeks contribution from the other colliding ship—in proportion to the latter’s share of liability for the collision— the non-spilling ship is entitled to limitation. In its judgment on CMA CGM Florida, the Supreme People’s Court clarifies two key judicial viewpoints: Firstly, in the event of a collision where both ships are at fault and one of the ships incurs an oil spill as a result, SPROs are entitled to claim cleanup costs not only from the spilling ship but also directly from the non-spilling ship. However, the non-spilling ship’s liability is limited to the proportion of fault attributable to it for the collision. Secondly, when the spilling ship does not qualify as a “sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned ship,” the claims for cleanup costs made by the SPROs against the spilling ship and the non-spilling ship are both limitable. This raises new questions. When a SPRO is entitled, according to the Supreme People’s Court’s judgment on CMA CGM Florida, to claim compensation from both the spilling ship and the non-spilling ship involved in a collision and where the spilling ship happens to be a “sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned ship”, the SPRO’s claim against the spilling ship is not subject to limitation under Article 20 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Disputes over Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, which provides that “[w]here measures are taken to raise, remove or render harmless a ship, which is sunk, stranded or wrecked, to avoid pollution damage caused by non-persistent fuel carried by an oil tanker or fuel carried by a non-oil tanker and the shipowners seek to avail themself of the protection under Chapter XI of the Maritime Code to limit liability for the expenses thus incurred, the People’s Court shall not support the shipowners’ request.” However, the issue of whether the SPRO’s claim against the non-spilling ship is limitable was not discussed or touched upon in the Supreme People’s Court judgment on CMA CGM Florida. Thus, when a SPRO makes a claim for cleanup costs against both the spilling ship and the non-spilling ship involved in a collision (where the spilling ship is a sunk, stranded or wrecked), the question of whether the same claim can have different legal natures (i.e. whether it is limitable or not) depending on the party being claimed against presents a novel legal proposition. As of now, there is no authoritative precedent specifically addressing this issue. Regarding the aforementioned novel proposition, we offer some preliminary thoughts on both potential conclusions, hoping to contribute constructively to the discourse. 船舶碰撞油污损害索赔是否属于 限制性债权的新思考 The Greater Bay Area
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA0NzE4Mw==