High Court dismisses CSL Australia appeal on limitation of liability for wreck removal claims
The High Court has confirmed that wreck removal claims cannot be limited under Australian law where Article 2(1)(d) of the 1976 Limitation Convention is excluded. The decision reinforces a strict interpretation of Australia’s reservation, clarifying the scope of liability for maritime operators.
In brief
Regular readers might recall our previous articles on the findings in the Federal Court of Australia in relation to an application by CSL Australia Pty Ltd (CSL) to limit its liability under the 1976 Limitation Convention (Convention) arising from the wreck removal of two tugs which sank following a collision with the bulk cement carrier “MV Goliath” in the Port of Devonport, Tasmania, in 2022.
See articles below:
An appeal by CSL to the High Court of Australia has been dismissed in a 5-0 result, leaving no doubt that as Australia had excluded the application of Article 2 (1) (d) of the Convention, then such claims were excluded from limitation irrespective of whether they might otherwise be limitable under other sub-paragraphs of Article 2 (1).
The decision in CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 15 provides a thorough review of the relevant international case law, including that in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in "The Flaminia" [2025] 1 WLR 1835 and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in "The Star Centurion" (2023) 26 HKCFAR 297.
Background
TasPorts claimed roughly AU$ 17 million for “costs of and associated with the containment, removal and disposal of hydrocarbons and the removal and disposal of the tugs”. CSL claimed it could limit its liability in accordance with the 1976 Limitation Convention.
Section 6 of the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 (Cth) provided that "subject to this Act, the provisions of the (1976 Convention), other than paragraphs 1 (d) and (e) of Article 2, have the force of law in Australia" (emphasis added).
TasPorts maintained that CSL could not limit its liability because the claims were within the scope of Article 2 (1) (d) of the 1976 Convention. CSL maintained that it did not matter if the claim fell within Article 2 (1) (d) as it also fell within Article 2 (1) (a) and so could be limited.
High Court decision
In a joint judgment of Chief Justice Gageler and Justices Gleeson and Jagot, it was held that TasPorts' approach was correct and consistent with the reasoning in both The Flaminia and The Star Centurion.
They also noted that from the travaux préparatoires of the Convention, that some State Parties had demanded the right to exclude claims falling within Articles 2 (1) (d) and (e). They further noted that Articles 2 (1) (a) and (d) were not co-extensive as Article 2 (1) (d) for "claims in respect of the raising, removal, destruction or the rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned”, is broader than Article 2 (1) (a) for wreck removal claims.
Justices Gordon and Edelman in their joint judgment stated that CSL's contention that TasPorts' claims were limitable was “untenable”. They noted that Australia had done as permitted under the 1976 Convention by reserving the right to exclude the application of Article 2 (1) (d) and (e) and on a strict construction of the wording the claims made were not able to be limited as asserted by CSL.
Conclusion
For further information regarding the implications of this decision and its impact on limitation of liability and maritime claims, please contact our Transport & Logistics team.
