In a decision with far-reaching consequences for the marine insurance market, Australia's High Court has unanimously ruled that Standard Club UK Ltd — the protection and indemnity club behind cement carrier operator CSL Australia — cannot limit its exposure on a $17.2 million wreck removal and pollution clean-up claim arising from a 2022 collision at the Port of Devonport, Tasmania.
The ruling in CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd [2026] HCA 15, handed down on May 13, confirms that Australia's reservation under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims removes wreck removal claims entirely from the statutory liability cap — regardless of whether those same claims could also be characterised as straightforward property damage.
The case began when the MV Goliath, a self-unloading bulk cement carrier wholly owned and operated by CSL, struck the tug York Cove — which was moored outboard of and alongside the tug Campbell Cove — while manoeuvring in the swing basin at Devonport on 28 January 2022. Both tugs were severely damaged and began taking on water almost immediately; within about five hours, both had sunk in approximately seven metres of water. Diesel fuel and other hydrocarbons escaped into the Mersey River. The EPA declared the incident a Level 2 marine pollution incident, with an estimated 54,000 litres of diesel and other oil aboard Campbell Cove and approximately 15,000 litres aboard York Cove.
TasPorts sued for approximately A$22 million. CSL did not deny liability but sought to invoke the Convention to cap its exposure — under the tonnage formula, that ceiling would have been no more than A$15 million. It was a meaningful gap of around $7 million, and Standard Club provided a letter of undertaking to the Federal Court in June 2023 as security for the claim while the legal battle over the cap played out across three tiers of the Australian court system.
When Australia adopted the 1976 Convention through the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act 1989 (Cth), it exercised its right under Article 18(1) to exclude Articles 2(1)(d) and (e) — the provisions that would otherwise permit shipowners to cap liability for wreck removal and cargo removal claims. CSL argued this exclusion was irrelevant because TasPorts' claim also fell within Article 2(1)(a), covering property damage arising from ship operations, which Australia had not excluded.
The High Court rejected that argument without dissent. Chief Justice Gageler and Justices Gleeson and Jagot held the reservation operates on its terms: Australia excluded the application of those sub-articles in their entirety. Justices Gordon and Edelman, in separate reasons, confirmed the reservation works "on an all or nothing basis" — once a claim falls within the excluded categories, no liability cap applies under the Convention, regardless of how else it might be characterised.
The plurality described CSL's contrary reading as requiring an "unspoken gloss" on the Convention's text — language that signals how firmly the court rejected the shipowner's construction.
P&I clubs cover third-party liabilities arising from the operation of ships, including personal injuries, environmental pollution, cargo damage, wreck removal, and collision-related property damage. Wreck removal is a core P&I exposure, and the size of individual claims — uncapped, as this ruling confirms, under Australian law — is precisely the kind of large-loss scenario the International Group's pooling arrangements exist to absorb. The pooling agreement among International Group members allows clubs to share claims exceeding $10 million, distributing large losses across the group.
For marine insurers and P&I clubs already navigating a challenging claims environment, the decision removes any residual ambiguity about Australian law's position. Underwriters pricing wreck removal exposure in Australian ports and coastal waters can no longer model a Convention cap as a backstop on that element of a claim. Full replacement cost, remediation, and environmental clean-up — all of it sits on the table.
CSL's exposure from the 2022 incident extends beyond the civil claim. The company has also been charged with unlawfully causing serious environmental harm and causing environmental nuisance, with those proceedings still pending. International alignment
The court's reasoning aligned Australian law with maritime jurisdictions elsewhere. The plurality endorsed the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal's approach in The Star Centurion and two unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, noting that comity is "of especial importance" in maritime law because it transcends any single national legal system. A UK Supreme Court decision — The Flaminia — was distinguished on the basis that it did not involve a state's exercise of the Article 18(1) reservation.
The practical signal for the Australian marine insurance market is unambiguous: Australia is now firmly in the camp of jurisdictions that treat wreck removal as an uncapped exposure, consistent with how leading international courts read the Convention where a state has exercised its reservation rights.
MinterEllison acted for the successful party TasPorts, with Christopher Keane and Joshua McKersey leading the team.
