This decision is the first decision by an English-speaking court on the question of whether claims in direct connection with the operation of a ship are limitable even if they concern sunken, wrecked, stranded or abandoned ships. The decision is definitive and has very significant implications for shipowners and insurers globally.
The case arises from an allision between a cargo vessel (the Goliath) and two tugs at berth owned by a harbour authority. The Goliath invoked the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (which is in force or indirectly applied through domestic legislation by all significant seafaring nations).
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal led by Keane NPJ had recently (in 2023) held that claims for sunken, wrecked, stranded or abandoned ships were excluded from limitation if a jurisdiction had (as in Australia and is often the case internationally) declined to enact a head of limitation directed to claims of that kind. That decision (Perussahaan Peroseroan (Persero) PT Pertamina v Trevaskis Ltd (The Star Centurion) [2023] HKCFA 20) itself relied in part on the majority reasoning of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Barameda Enterprises Pty Lt v O’Connor (The Tiruna) [1988] 1 Qd R 359.
The Federal Court of Australia declined to follow the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and preferred the minority reasoning in The Tiruna. The upshot is that claims in a direct connection with the operation of a ship are limitable even if they concern sunken, wrecked, stranded or abandoned ships. The separate head of limitation for sunken etc ships is directed to actors other than owners of the wrongdoing ship.
The full judgment can be viewed here - CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd (The Goliath) [2024] FCA 824