Juris Law Oilspill

8/17/2019 Juris Law Oilspill

1/19

Guimaras spill victims to

pursue P291M class suit

SHARES:177VIEW COMMENTS

By: Nestor P. Burgos Jr.@inquirerotnet

Inquirer Vis!y!s

"#:$% PM M!r&' ()t'* %"(%RECOMMENDED

M!n un!+o,ogeti& -or -oo,ing Jo,,iee e,i/ery guy

Vi&tori! Court -ouner Ar&'ie 0ing* +i,ot ie in B!t!ng!s &'o++er &r!s'

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/163643/guimaras-spill-victims-to-pursue-p291m-class-suit#art_dischttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/byline/nestor-p-burgos-jrhttp://www.twitter.com/inquirerdotnethttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/source/inquirer-visayashttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703001/man-unapologetic-for-fooling-jollibee-delivery-guyhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/702968/son-of-chinese-filipino-billionaire-killed-in-chopper-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/702968/son-of-chinese-filipino-billionaire-killed-in-chopper-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703001/man-unapologetic-for-fooling-jollibee-delivery-guyhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/byline/nestor-p-burgos-jrhttp://www.twitter.com/inquirerdotnethttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/source/inquirer-visayashttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703001/man-unapologetic-for-fooling-jollibee-delivery-guyhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/702968/son-of-chinese-filipino-billionaire-killed-in-chopper-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/163643/guimaras-spill-victims-to-pursue-p291m-class-suit#art_disc


2/19

12!/ore3 &ontr!&tors o- Bin!ys ienti4e

Bi,,ion!ire* +i,ot ie in 'e,i&o+ter &r!s'

5uterte to 6!7e s6ugg,ers e!t t'eir -!7e ri&e

ILOILO CITY—The lawyer of nearly 1,000 claimants for damages in the 2006 oil spill in

!imaras said his clients wo!ld p!rs!e the "2#1$million class s!it against "etron Corp%

and the owner of the ill$fated cargo &essel e&en !p to the '!preme Co!rt%

()y clients want the respondents to *e held responsi*le for the damage to their

comm!nity ca!sed *y the oil spill and to *e compensated for their losses,+ ntonio

Ligon, coco!nsel of #6- claimants, told the In.!irer in a telephone inter&iew%

The )anila$*ased Ligon, along with lawyer /omeo "ortea, is representing the claimants

in ci&il and criminal cases led on !ne 2#, 200#, against ocials of "etron Corp% and

'!nshine )aritime 3e&elopment Corp% 4'3)C5%

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703078/favored-contractors-of-binays-identifiedhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703072/billionaire-pilot-die-in-helicopter-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/701820/duterte-to-make-smugglers-eat-their-fake-ricehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/701820/duterte-to-make-smugglers-eat-their-fake-ricehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703072/billionaire-pilot-die-in-helicopter-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703078/favored-contractors-of-binays-identifiedhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703078/favored-contractors-of-binays-identifiedhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/703072/billionaire-pilot-die-in-helicopter-crashhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/701820/duterte-to-make-smugglers-eat-their-fake-rice


3/19

The ocials incl!de Clemente Cancio, '3)C president 7halid l$8addagh, "etron

president 9icasio lcantara, "etron chief e:ec!ti&e ocer and 9or*erto g!ro, captain

of the )T 'olar I%

lso named respondent in the ci&il case was the London$*ased International Oil "oll!tion

Compensation 8!nd 4IO"C85, an intergo&ernment organi;ation that indemnies &ictims

of oil spills%

/eached for comment, the "etron corporate comm!nication oce said it wo!ld cons!lt

with its lawyers%

In the information led *efore !imaras /egional Trial Co!rt on 8e*% 1 4Clean

?ater ct5%

In one of the two ci&il cases, the claimants are demanding "2@6,A1


4/19

D!t the IO"C8 had reFected nearly 1


5/19

eight long %ears since 0ugust 11+ 2 ,hen oil tan3er 4M5& 6olar .7 san3 o)) Guimaras 6trait+ spillingappro8imatel% + liters out o) 2/1 million liters o) -un3er oil/. ha* thought that Petron orp/ an* 6unshine Maritime ;evelopment orp/ o,ners o) thespille* oil an* the tan3er+ respectivel% ? ha* )ull% compensate* the claimants$ut -ase* on the ma%or#s letter to P(o%+ at least a thousan* Guimarasnons ? a tenth o) the *eclare* oilspill victims ? ha* )ile* civil an* criminal cases against Petron+ 6M;c an* the .nternational Oil Pollutionompensation


6/19

o) Petron orp/+ 6unshine Maritime ;evelopment orp/+ an* the Philippine oast Guar*/

E8pecte* to -e at the hearing are Petron chairman (icasio 0lcantara+ 6unshine Maritime presi*ent lemente ancio+oast Guar* comman*ant 'ice 0*miral 0rthur Gosingan+ an* tan3er captain (or-erto 0guro/

&he ;O panel is tas3e* to *etermine the criminal lia-ilities o) those involve* in the inci*ent+ ,hich continues tothreaten other areas in the Western 'isa%as region/

Mean,hile+ the $oar* o) Marine .nCuir% has summone* more cre, mem-ers o) the ill")ate* tan3er at its o,n hearing> Herminio Renger+ pumpman esse 0ngel+ an* oilers Re%nal*o &orio an* 'ictor Mora*os/

Petron orp/ contracte* Solar I o,ne* -% 6unshine Maritime to transport 2/1 million liters o) -un3er oil )rom $ataan toIam-oanga/ &he ship san3+ reporte*l% *ue to -a* ,eather+ in Guimaras 6trait last 0ug/ 11/

&he $M. has recommen*e* the revocation o) 0guro#s license an* penalties against Petron an* 6unshine Maritime+-ut it *oes not have prosecutorial po,ers/

Last @ri*a%+ the ;O issue* a hol* *eparture or*er against o))icers o) 6unshine Maritime+ inclu*ing at least )ourapanese incorporators/

$ut the Dustice secretar% a*mitte* that or*er cannot -e en)orce* as no charges have -een )ile* against an%one at thistime/

overe* -% the hol*"*eparture or*er ,ere Mototsugu Jamaguchi+ Hiro%asu Jamaguchi+ &omo3i &su-omoto+ Hiromi.rishi3a an* their @ilipino partners ;ionisio Parulan+ Gregorio @lores+ lemente ancio+ Ro-erto Mena+ an* 0ngelita$uenaventura/

GonAaleA sai* the incorporators o) 6unshine Maritime coul* -e hel* lia-le )or civil *amages in connection ,ith the oilslic3 that a*versel% a))ecte* the livelihoo* o) resi*ents o) Guimaras an* neigh-oring provinces/

Horo%asu Jamaguchi is reporte*l% )acing a perDur% case -e)ore the Ma3ati Regional &rial ourt/ - GMANews.TV

More )rom: http:55,,,/gmanet,or3/com5ne,s5stor%51KK5ne,s5nation5Dustice"*epartment"ta3es"a"crac3"at"solar"oil"

spill"case

INTERNATIONA8 OI8 PO889TIONCOMPENSATION IOPC; 29N5SMEETIN< AT IMO ($ = (#OCTOBER %"(%

The IOPC 1971 Fund, the Supplementary Fund and also the 1992 FundAssembly together with its Executive Committee met at the IMO

Headquarters from 15 through 19 October 2012. There were many

agenda items connected to good ‘housekeeping’ such as Procedural

Matters, Financial Reporting, Financial Policies and Procedures,


7/19

Secretariat and administrative matters, also Treaty and Budgetary

issues, all of which were discussed in rigorous detail. However, of more

interest to Intermanager are those incidents involving the IOPC Funds

and compensation matters which are summarised as follows, withapologies for length:

1971 FUND

• VISTABELLA. It was recalled that the 1971 Fund had commenced

summary proceedings against the shipowner’s insurer in Trinidad and

Tobago to enforce the judgement of the Guadeloupe Court of Appeal

and that the insurer had opposed execution of the judgement; also, inMarch 2008 the Court judged in the 1972 Fund’s favour but the insurer

appealed in the Trinidad and Tobago Court of Appeal. Then in July 2012,

the same court refused enforcement of the Guadeloupe Court judgement

arguing that it would be contrary to public policy to enforce a judgement

in which French courts had assumed jurisdiction. Following this, the

1971 Fund has requested the Court of Appeal leave to appeal the

judgement of the Privy Council.

• AEGEAN SEA. On 30 October 2002, a global settlement was

concluded between the Spanish State, the 1971 Fund, the shipowner

and the UK Club whereby the Spanish State undertook to compensate

all the victims who might obtain a final judgement by a Spanish court in

their favour, which condemned the shipowner, the UK Club and the 1971

Fund to pay compensation as a result of the incident. A number of

claimants from the fisheries and mariculture sectors did not reach

agreement with the Spanish State on their losses and initiated civil

proceedings against the Spanish Government and the 1971 Fund in the

Court of First Instance in La Coruna, where one claim remains

outstanding, that by a fish pond owner. The Court slashed the figure

claimed of €799,921 to €181,873 for which the 1971 Fund was deemed


8/19

liable but this is being appealed. The Spanish State will, under the

agreement with the 1971 Fund, pay any amount awarded by the Courts.

• ILIAD. Despite the 1971 Fund’s request to the Liquidator in July 2010 to

expedite the hearing of the limitation proceedings, nothing hashappened. However, the claim amount approved by the Liquidator of

€2,125,755 plus interest is well within the limitation sum of €4.4 million,

noting also that roughly one third of the approved amount might be time-

barred. Although the likelihood of the 1971 Fund having to pay

compensation is slim, 446 claimants have filed appeals against the

Liquidator’s Report claiming some €11 million. Thus the Fund will

continue to monitor the legal proceedings.

• NISSOS AMORGOS. It will be recalled that on 28 February 1997, the

Greek tanker NISSOS AMORGOS (50,563GRT) spilled an estimated

3,600 tonnes of crude oil, after running aground whilst passing through

the Marcaibo Channel in the Gulf of Venezuela. Since then, Limitation of

Liability has been established, overturned, then upheld in various

Venezuelan courts culminating in an appeal filed to the Supreme

Tribunal by the shipowner and the Gard Club. The meeting shared the

view that there are no grounds to hold that the shipowner is not entitledto limit liability. Meanwhile, the Veneuelan government has claimed

approximately US$60 million in the Criminal Court and a further US$60

million in the Civil Court for environmental damage. As to the criminal

proceedings under civil liability, in February 2010, the Maracaibo

Criminal Court of First Instance held that the Master, the shipowner and

the Gard Club should pay the Venezuelan State in excess of US$60

million. This judgement was upheld by the Maracaibo Criminal Court ofAppeal in March 2011 and has since been appealed to the Supreme

Tribunal.

• PLATE PRINCESS. The PLATE PRINCESS spilled some 3.2 tonnes of

crude oil contained within 8,000 tonnes of ballast water in Puerto

Miranda (Venezuela) on 27 May 1997. In June 1997, two fishermen’s


9/19

trade unions, FETRA PESCA and Puerto Miranda Union (PMU)

presented claims in the Civil Court of Caracas against the shipowner and

the master for US$10 million and US$20 million respectively. There were

no developments in respect of these claims until October 2005 when the1971 Fund was formally notified as an interested third party. The 1971

Fund Administrative Council decided in May 2006 that both claims were

time-barred but seven months later, both claims were transferred to the

Maritime Court of First Instance in Caracas. A second notification was

made to the Fund by the Court in March 2007 and it accepted an

amended claim by the PMU for £7.9 million in April 2008. Some six

months later in November 2008, the Fund argued that the documents

provided by the claimants did not demonstrate the damage and was in

many instances falsified. Since then, judgement and counter-judgement

have bounced between the Maritime Court of First Instance and that of

Appeal together with the Supreme Court of Venezuela, including its

Constitutional Section. Notable in this time was FETRA PESCA’s request

to withdraw its claim from the Maritime Court of First Instance which was

rejected. Most recently, in August 2012 the Constitutional Section of the

Supreme Court rejected the 1971 Fund’s appeal against the judgementof the Supreme Court regarding the quantum of the loss. In an attempt to

analyse the legal basis for the 1971 Fund to refuse payment under

Article X of the 1969 CLC, the Fund Director engaged Dr Thomas

Mensah, a distinguished maritime law expert who had also been

Executive Secretary of the Diplomatic Conferences which resulted in the

adoption of the 1969 CLC and 1971 Fund Convention. Dr Mensah, who

was present at the meeting expressed his views that:(1) The Venezuelan court interpretation on the issue of time-bar was

incorrect;

(2) The judgement of the Venezuelan court relating to the quantum of

damages was based on evidence that was known to be false and could

be challenged; and


10/19

(3) The judgement of the Court could also be challenged by asserting

that the Fund had not been afforded a fair opportunity to present its case

before the Venezuelan Court.

It was thus decided that the Director should not make any payment inrespect of this incident and to continue opposing the enforcement of the

judgement in addition to defending the interest of the 1971 Fund in any

legal court actions in Venezuela.

It is noted that, unlike the previous meeting, Venezuela was not

represented.

• WINDING UP OF THE 1971 FUND. A small Consultation Group was

established to examine the outstanding issues which need to be resolved

before the 1971 Fund can be wound up, in particular with respect to

pending incidents, outstanding oil reports and contributions in arrears

following which, suitable recommendations can be made to the next

session.

1992 FUND

• ERIKA. On 12 December 1999, the ERICA sank in the Bay of Biscay,

some 60 nautical miles off the coast of Brittany, causing oil-pollution to

400 kilometres of shoreline and impacting heavily on businesses in thefisheries and tourism sector. Six actions remain pending against the

1992 Fund involving 20 claimants with a total claimed amount of €10.4

million. Of note:

(a) the representative of the shipowner and the president of the

management company were found guilty of a lack of proper

maintenance, leading to general corrosion of the ship;

(b) RINA was found guilty for its imprudence in renewing the ERIKA’sclassification certificate on the basis of an inspection that fell below the

standards of the profession; and

(c) Total SA was found guilty of imprudence when carrying out its vetting

operations prior to the chartering of the ERIKA.


11/19

IACS pointed out that the principle of sovereign immunity for

classification societies acting on behalf of the Flag State had by

implication been accepted by the Court of Cassation in France

• PRESTIGE. On 13 November 2002, the Bahamas-registered tanker

PRESTIGE (42,820 GT) carrying 76,972 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, began

listing and leaking oil some 30 kilometres off Cape Finisterre (Galicia,

Spain). On 19 November, whilst under tow away from the coast, the

vessel broke in two and sank some 260 kilometres west of Vigo (Spain),

the bow section to a depth of 3,500 metres and the stern section to a

depth of 3,830 metres. The break-up and sinking released an estimated

63,272 tonnes of cargo. Over the following weeks, oil continued to leakfrom the wreck at a declining rate. It was subsequently estimated by the

Spanish State that approximately 13,800 tonnes of cargo remained in the

wreck. In respect of compensation, the claims handling office in La

Coruna received 845 claims totalling €1,037 million including 15 from the

Spanish government for €984.8 million. In France, there were 482 claims

totalling €109.7 million, including €67.5 from the French government.

Finally, the Portuguese government submitted a claim for €4.3 million,now assessed at €2.2 million. In July 2010, the Criminal Court in

Corcubion decided that four persons should stand trial for criminal and

civil liability resulting from the spill, namely the Master, the Chief Officer

and the Chief Engineer of the PRESTIGE together with the civil servant

who had been involved in the decision not to allow the ship into a place

of refuge in Spain. The hearing was scheduled to start in the Audienca

Provincial court in La Coruna on 16 October 2012, and is expected to

continue until May 2013. Meanwhile, the Spanish State has until the end

of November 2012 to appeal against the judgement by the New York

Courts of Appeal that they had not produced sufficient evidence to

establish that ABS, which classed PRESTIGE, had acted in a reckless

manner. A similar legal action by the French State against three


12/19

companies in the group of ABS was staged pending the outcome of legal

proceedings in the other countries. The defendants had opposed the

charges by relying on the defence of sovereign immunity.

Finally, the 1992 Fund Executive Committee recalled that the IOPCFunds’ policy in respect of recourse actions was to take such measures

whenever appropriate to recover any amounts paid by them from

shipowners or other parties on the basis of the applicable national law

and that if matters of principle were involved, the question of costs

should not be a decisive factor for the Fund when considering whether to

take legal action and that the decision as to whether or not to take such

action should be made on a case-by-case basis. Thus the Director was

authorised to bring a recourse action against ABS in France prior to 13

November 2012 as an interim measure to avoid the action becoming

time-barred under French law.

• SOLAR 1. On 11 August 2006, the Philippines’ registered tanker

SOLAR 1 (998 GT) , laden with a cargo of 2,081 tonnes of industrial fuel

oil, sank in heavy weather in the Guimaras Strait, some ten nautical

miles south of Guimaras Island, Republic of the Philippines. At the time

of the incident an unknown but substantial quantity of oil was releasedfrom the vessel after it sank and the sunken wreck continued to release

oil, albeit in ever decreasing quantities. Following an operation to remove

the remaining oil from the wreck it was found that virtually the entire

cargo had been spilled at the time of the incident. The limitation amount

applicable to the SOLAR 1 in accordance with the 1992 CLC is 4.51

million SDR, but the owner of the SOLAR 1 is a party to the Small

Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification Agreement 2006 (STOPIA 2006)whereby the limitation amount applicable to the tanker is increased, on a

voluntary basis to 20 million SDR. However, the 1992 Fund continues to

be liable to compensate claimants if, and to the extent that the total

amount of admissible claims exceeds the limitation amount applicable to

the SOLAR 1 under the 1992 CLC. Under STOPIA 2006, the 1992 Fund


13/19

has legally enforceable rights of indemnification from the shipowner of

the difference between the limitation amount applicable to the tanker

under the 1992 CLC and the amount of admissible claims up to 20

million SDR. The Fund and the Shipowners’ Club agreed that the 1992Fund would make compensation payments once the limitation amount

under the 1992 CLC had been reached and that the Club would

reimburse the Fund any payments made within two weeks of being

invoiced by the Fund, an arrangement that has worked smoothly

throughout the handling of the incident. Work on the assessment of

claims was completed in August 2011 and no further payments have

been made since October 2010, although it is expected that a claim by

the Philippines Coastguard for £1.61 million will be paid shortly.

• VOLGONEFT 139. On 11 November 2007, the Russian-registered

tanker VOLGONEFT 139 broke in two in the Kerch Strait which links the

Sea of Azov and the Black Sea between the Russian Federation and

Ukraine. It is believed that up to 2,000 tonnes of fuel oil were spilled at

the time of the incident. Some 250 kilometres of shoreline both in the

Russian Federation and in Ukraine were affected by the oil. The ship was

owned by JSC Volgotanker which has since been declared bankrupt bythe Commercial Court (Arbitration Court) in Moscow. The shipowner was

insured for protection and indemnity by Ingosstrakh (Russian

Federation), which does not belong to the International Group of P& I

Clubs. The insurance cover is limited to 3 million SDR (RUB 116.3

million) which is well below the minimum limit under the 1992 Civil

Liability Convention (1992 CLC) of 4.51 million SDR leaving an

‘insurance gap’ of some 1.5 million SDR. All claims with supportingdocumentation have been assessed and the total established losses

have been determined as RUB 338.78 million (£6.7 million). In July 2012

the Court delivered its judgement on quantum which awarded claimants

RUB 503.2 million (£9.9 million) including legal interest. In the judgement

it was held that the insurers had a liability of 3 million SDR in accordance


14/19

with Russian law as published in the official Gazette at the time of the

incident, however, the 1992 Fund and a local authority have appealed

against the judgement. In making its decision, the Committee noted that

although a number of delegations had suggested that the 1992 Fundshould try to pay compensation to the victims of this incident, the

majority of delegations considered that the ‘insurance gap’ had first to be

resolved before the 1992 Fund could start making payments.

Accordingly, the Director was instructed to continue discussions with the

claimants and the Russian authorities to explore a solution to the

‘insurance gap’ and revert to the Committee with a proposal at a future

session.

• HEBEI SPIRIT. The Hong Kong registered tanker HEIBEI SPIRIT

(146,848 GT) was struck by the crane barge SAMSUNG No 1 while at

anchor about five nautical miles of Taean on the west coast of the

Republic of Korea. The crane barge was being towed by two tugs

(SAMSUNG No 5 and SAMHO T3) when the tow line broke. Weather

conditions were poor and it was reported that the crane barge had drifted

into the tanker, puncturing three of its port cargo tanks. The HEBEI

SPIRIT was laden with about 209,000 tonnes of four different crude oils.Due to inclement weather conditions, repairs of the punctured tanks took

four days to complete. In the meantime, the crew of the HEBEI SPIRIT

tried to limit the quantity of cargo spilled through holes in the damaged

tanks by making it list and transferring cargo between tanks. However, as

the tanker was almost fully laden, the possibilities for such actions were

limited. As a result of the collision a total of 10,900 tonnes of oil (a mix of

Iranian Heavy, Upper Zakum and Kuwait Export) escaped into the sea.The HEBEI SPIRIT is owned by Hebei Spirit Shipping Company Limited.

It is insured by China Shipowners Mutual Insurance Association (China

P&I) and Assurancef rfeningen Skuld (Gjensidig) (Skuld Club) and

managed by V-Ships Limited. The crane barge and the two tugs are

owned and/or operated by Samsung Corporation and its subsidiary


15/19

Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) which belong to the Samsung Group,

the Republic of Korea’s largest industrial conglomerate. It was noted that

the total amount of assessed claims so far was £102.4 million,

corresponding to 99.9% of all claims but excluding those of the KoreanGovernment who had elected to ‘stand last’ in the queue. Given that the

majority of claimants who had received interim compensation had not

agreed to the quantum of their claims, it was decided to maintain the

level of payment at 35% of the amount of the established losses, then

review the figure at the Committee’s next session. Finally, the Korean

delegation welcomed the efforts of the Secretariat to explore alternative

methods of assessing small scale non-fisheries claims.

• INCIDENT IN ARGENTINA. Between 50 and 200 tonnes of oil

impacted the shoreline in Caleta Córdova, Chubut Province, Argentina,

on 25-26 December 2007. A total of 5.7 kilometres of coastline is

reported to have been affected and an investigation into the cause of the

incident by the Federal Court of Comodoro Rivadavia (Criminal Section)

reached a preliminary decision that the spill originated from the

PRESIDENTE ARTURO UMBERTO ILLIA (PRESIDENTE ILLIA).

However, the shipowner and the insurer of the PRESIDENTE ILLIAcontest liability. The shipowner argues that the oil which impacted the

coast must have come from another source. The PRESIDENTE ILLIA

was insured with the West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance

Association (Luxembourg) (West of England Club), the limit of liability of

the owner of the PRESIDENTE ILLIA for which under the 1992 Civil

Liability Convention (1992 CLC), is estimated to be 24,067,845 SDR. It

seems likely that the total admissible damage caused by the spill will bewithin the shipowner’s limit. Discussions were held between the 1992

Fund and the West of England Club and it was agreed that the

shipowner and his insurer would pay claims for compensation assessed

and approved in accordance with the principles laid down in the 1992

Civil Liability and Fund Conventions. It was agreed that, if it is finally


16/19

established that the oil which impacted the coast did not come from the

PRESIDENTE ILLIA but from another source, the shipowner and the

West of England Club would attempt to recover the amounts of

compensation paid from the party responsible for the oil spill. It was alsoagreed that if it is proved that the oil spill must have come from a tanker

other than the PRESIDENTE ILLIA but it remains unknown which one, a

so-called ‘mystery spill’, the shipowner and the West of England Club

would recover the amounts of compensation paid from the 1992 Fund. In

December 2010 the 1992 Fund, in order to protect its compensation

rights, brought an action in the Court of Buenos Aires against the owner

of the SAN JULIAN, another possible source of the spill, and against his

insurer. Five persons including the master, officers and crew of the

PRESIDENTE ILLIA have been charged with water pollution under

Argentine environment law, also the shipowner’s representative for hiding

information and evidence. Under civil proceedings, 22 actions

representing 83 claimants remain pending against the owner of the

PRESIDENTE ILLIA and the West of England Club which actions include

the 1992 Fund either as a defendant or as an interested third party. In

the meantime, all parties have agreed to stay the proceedings pendingthe resolution of the criminal proceedings.

• KING DARWIN. On 27 September 2008, the Marshall Islands-

registered oil tanker KING DARWIN (42,010 GT) was reported to have

released approximately 64 tonnes of bunker fuel oil into the waters in the

Port of Dalhousie, New Brunswick,CANADA. The 1992 Fund

understands that this was a small operational spill and damage caused

appears to be well within the 1992 Civil Liability Convention limit. It istherefore unlikely that the 1992 Fund will be called upon to pay

compensation. In September 2009, a dredging company filed an action

in the Federal Court in Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the owner of the

KING DARWIN, Steamship Mutual and the 1992 Fund, claiming property

damage and consequential losses for Can$143,417. This action is still

http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/#87799710http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/#87799710http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/#87799710


17/19

pending in Court. Also there have been no developments in the

proceedings since the October 2011 session of the 1992 Fund Executive

Committee and no further claims for compensation are expected.

• JS AMAZING. In May 2011, the 1992 Fund was informed of a spillwhich had occurred in June 2009, when the tanker JS AMAZING spilled

an unknown quantity of low pour fuel oil, into the Warri River, Delta State,

Nigeria. The 1992 Fund was also informed that in May 2009,

approximately two weeks prior to the spill from the JS AMAZING, an oil

spill had occurred from a vandalised Nigerian National Petroleum

Corporation (NNPC)/Pipeline Products Marketing Corporation (PPMC)

oil pipeline, in the same area. Neither incident was widely reported

outside Nigeria and preliminary investigations by the 1992 Fund failed to

reveal a great deal of information regarding the spill from the JS

AMAZING, or the identity of the shipowner. No records of any cover for

the vessel could be found with a P&I Club from the International Group.

In June 2012, the Director, who was the Claims Manager dealing with the

incident and two Fund experts visited Nigeria and expressed their

gratitude for the assistance offered to them by the Nigerian authorities.

However, it was noted that there remained a number of issues whichrequired further examination, including the fact that the owner of the JS

AMAZING had not paid any compensation to claimants nor had the

shipowner limited his liability by establishing a limited fund in accordance

with Article V of the 1992 CLC. It was observed that there were a number

of issues to resolve in the incident, including the apparent unwillingness

of the shipowner to accept liability in accordance with the 1992 CLC and

the absence of a proven link of causation between the incident and thealleged damages. The Executive Committee noted that any

compensation would need to be based on established losses, before it

could authorise the Director to make compensation payments. The 1992

Fund Executive Committee also noted that the Director intended to

continue working with the Nigerian authorities and the claimants to


18/19

examine the issues arising from the incident and that he would revert to

them with a recommendation in the future.

• REDFFERM. In January 2012, the Secretariat was informed of an

incident which occurred in March 2009 at Tin Can Island, Lagos, Nigeria.Initial reports of the incident reported that the tanker MT CONCEP was

trans-shipping some of its cargo of low pour fuel oil (LPFO) into a barge,

the REDFFERM, when at some point during the trans-shipment, a spill

occurred. However, further facts have since been made available to the

Secretariat which clarify that it was the barge REDFFERM which sank

following the cargo trans-shipment and its cargo of between 500 and 650

tonnes of LPFO spilled into the waters surrounding the site, which then

impacted upon the neighbouring Tin Can Island area. The barge was

subsequently raised with the assistance of a crane barge. Clean-up

operations were conducted by African Circle, as contracted by the

Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA). In addition, other Government agencies

including the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency

(NIMASA) and the Nigerian Oil Spill Defence Response Agency

(NOSDRA) also attended the spill. In June 2012, the Director and

members of the Secretariat visited Nigeria to ascertain further facts ofthe incident, meet with the shipowner and visit the affected area. A claim

has been filed against the 1992 Fund by 102 communities allegedly

affected by the incident in the sum of US$26.15 million, although no

calculations or justifications have been submitted for the figures claimed.

Following debate, the Director was instructed to establish whether the

barge REDFFERM constituted a ‘sea-going ship or other seaborne craft’

as described in Article I.1 of the 1992 CLC, before any decisionregarding payment of compensation could be taken. The 1992 Fund

Executive Committee also noted that the director would continue to work

closely with the Nigerian authorities and the claimants to ascertain the

facts of the case and, if applicable, to determine the compensation due

to the victims and would report back to the 1992 Fund Executive


19/19

Committee at its next session.

• ALFA I. On March 2012, the tanker ALFA I hit a submerged object,

most likely the marked wreck of the vessel CITY OF MYCONOS, while

crossing Elefsis Bay near Piraeus, Greece. The impact punctured thebottom hull plating of ALFA I over a length of some 30 metres. Shortly

thereafter, the ALFA I listed over onto her starboard side and sank,

resulting in the tragic loss of the master with the ship coming to rest in 18

– 20 metres of water, her stern in contact with the seabed but the bow

still visible above water. The ALFA I was built in 1972, a single hull tanker

with 12 cargo tanks. At the time of the incident, ALFA I was said to be

loaded with some 2,070 tonnes of cargo comprising 1,500 tonnes of fuel

oil No 2, 300 tonnes of fuel oil No 1 and 270 tonnes of gas oil. The exact

amount and specifications of the cargo and bunkers on board at the time

of the incident are not known. After sinking, an unknown quantity of oil

was released from the tanker through the manholes, vent pipes and

sounding pipes on her deck. In consideration of the level of uncertainties

in respect of contradictions in the terms of the insurance policy and the

certificates, it was judged premature to take any decision at present.

Accordingly, it was decided that further investigations into the incidentwere necessary prior to authorising the Director to start making

payments and that any developments should be reported to the next

session.

Captain Paddy McKnight

httpGHHwww%intermanager%orgHreso!rcesHimo$!pdatesHinternational$oil$poll!tion$

compensation$iopc$f!nds$meeting$at$imo$1>$1#$octo*er$2012H
http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/http://www.intermanager.org/resources/imo-updates/international-oil-pollution-compensation-iopc-funds-meeting-at-imo-15-19-october-2012/

Date post:	06-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rheinhart-pahila
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Juris Law Oilspill

Documents