Local authorities often face considerable expense when the coastline is polluted by oil and other noxious substances as a result of maritime accidents. They are in charge of coordinating the response plan, which may involve mobilizing the police and firefighting services, evacuating the local population, cleaning up the beaches and disposing of pollutants and polluted matter.
If the pollutant is oil from a tanker then obtaining compensation should be a relatively straightforward exercise. The ship owner will be liable regardless of whether or not he was at fault. The level of compensation is capped at US$87 million but will soon be revised upwards to US$190 million (see box).
However if the pollutant is a non-persistent oil, or other hazardous or noxious substance there are no international conventions in force to provide for liability and the local authority has to fall back on national law.
Can national law help a local authority which looks to the polluter for reimbursement of the costs incurred?
Identifying the ship that caused the pollution will not usually be too problematic thanks to the provisions of international maritime law which place the ship's Master under the duty to report a discharge during the operation of the ship of oil or noxious substances in excess of the quantity or instantaneous rate permitted.
Establishing the jurisdiction of the UK courts sometimes requires the ship itself to be arrested and prevented from leaving. Unfortunately the interesting spectacle of a pack of lawyers clinging to ropes as the ship tries to leave harbour rarely materialises. The owners can generally be persuaded to appoint solicitors and provide an address for service of proceedings in the UK.
The trickiest problem to overcome may well be deciding which legal remedy to pursue. This is a complex area of law and statutory clean-up powers, nuisance, negligence and a variety of other options can all be considered. Proving that the local authority has suffered an actionable loss is less easy than might be expected.
Finally the local authority may find that the ship's owner has elected to limit its own liability. This unique advantage arises under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. The limitation is based on a formula which takes into account the tonnage of the vessel and the compensation will be substantially less than under the oil pollution regime.
Anthony Hobley, GRSC, Solicitor, Environment Department
The above is an extract taken from issue 10 of Environment Law Matters January 1995, published on behalf of Nabarro Nathanson.
Detailed specialist advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the comments made in this article which are only intended as a brief introduction to the particular subject. Nabarro Nathanson is regulated in the conduct of investment business by the Law Society.
For additional information contact Kevin Wheeler, Nabarro Nathanson, tel 071 491 6982.
If the pollutant is oil from a tanker then obtaining compensation should be a relatively straightforward exercise. The ship owner will be liable regardless of whether or not he was at fault. The level of compensation is capped at US$87 million but will soon be revised upwards to US$190 million (see box).
However if the pollutant is a non-persistent oil, or other hazardous or noxious substance there are no international conventions in force to provide for liability and the local authority has to fall back on national law.
Can national law help a local authority which looks to the polluter for reimbursement of the costs incurred?
Identifying the ship that caused the pollution will not usually be too problematic thanks to the provisions of international maritime law which place the ship's Master under the duty to report a discharge during the operation of the ship of oil or noxious substances in excess of the quantity or instantaneous rate permitted.
Establishing the jurisdiction of the UK courts sometimes requires the ship itself to be arrested and prevented from leaving. Unfortunately the interesting spectacle of a pack of lawyers clinging to ropes as the ship tries to leave harbour rarely materialises. The owners can generally be persuaded to appoint solicitors and provide an address for service of proceedings in the UK.
The trickiest problem to overcome may well be deciding which legal remedy to pursue. This is a complex area of law and statutory clean-up powers, nuisance, negligence and a variety of other options can all be considered. Proving that the local authority has suffered an actionable loss is less easy than might be expected.
Finally the local authority may find that the ship's owner has elected to limit its own liability. This unique advantage arises under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. The limitation is based on a formula which takes into account the tonnage of the vessel and the compensation will be substantially less than under the oil pollution regime.
Anthony Hobley, GRSC, Solicitor, Environment Department
The above is an extract taken from issue 10 of Environment Law Matters January 1995, published on behalf of Nabarro Nathanson.
Detailed specialist advice should be obtained before taking or refraining from any action as a result of the comments made in this article which are only intended as a brief introduction to the particular subject. Nabarro Nathanson is regulated in the conduct of investment business by the Law Society.
For additional information contact Kevin Wheeler, Nabarro Nathanson, tel 071 491 6982.
