The Australian High Court’s recent decision in CSL Australia Pty Ltd v Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd is a significant development in Australian maritime law and in the interpretation of the international Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (as amended) (the Limitation Convention), with the potential for broader implications going forward. It clarifies how Australia’s decision to exclude certain categories of claims from the Limitation Convention (i.e. from the limitation of liability regime) operates in practice.

The Court considered whether CSL Australia Pty Ltd (CSL) could limit its liability for Tasmanian Ports Corporation Pty Ltd's (TasPorts) claim, which arguably fell within the scope of two provisions of the Limitation Convention, one which was disapplied or excluded  by Australia (Art 2(1)(d) of the Limitation Convention)^[1] and the other which had been adopted by Australia (Art 2(1)(a)).^[2]

Key Issues

The case established three central issues:

• Australia’s reservation has full effect: The exclusion of Art 2(1)(d) and (e) operates to remove those categories of claims from the limitation regime altogether.
• Overlapping claims do not restore limitation: Claims for wreck removal (which are disapplied/excluded from the limitation of liability regime by Australia) cannot be reintroduced into the limitation regime by simply recharacterizing the claim as a claim for "damage to property" under Art 2(1)(a).
• Art 18 operates as a threshold rule: The interaction between Arts 18 and 2 of the Limitation Convention, determines whether claims fall within or outside the limitation regime, in recognition of signatory State's right to disapply/exclude specified provisions of the Limitation Convention, while endorsing the balance of the Convention.

Background

In 2022, the vessel MV Goliath struck two moored tugs and a wharf at the Port of Devonport, Tasmania (owned by TasPorts),^[3] causing the tugs to sink and release diesel into the Mersey River and causing damage to the wharf. TasPorts sued CSL (owner /operator of the Goliath), to recover costs (over $17 million) it incurred for removal of the wrecks, and disposal of the hydrocarbons. 

CSL sought to limit its liability under the Limitation Convention by s 6 of the Limitation Act, which gives the Limitation Convention, "other than paragraphs 1(d) and (e) of Article 2" the force of law in Australia.^[4]

TasPorts opposed CSL's attempt to limit its liability, arguing that TasPort's claims fell within the scope of Art 2(1)(d) of the Limitation Convention, which had been expressly excluded by Australia^[5] in s 6 of the Limitation Act, such that claims falling within Art 2(1)(d) or (e) of the Limitation Convention, cannot be limited under Australian law. CSL disagreed, arguing that Australia's disapplication of Art 2(1)(d) of the Limitation Convention did not matter because TasPort's claims also fell within the scope of Art 2(1)(a) of the Limitation Convention, which had been adopted by Australia, and as such CSL's claims were limitable.^[6]

At first instance, the Court accepted CSL’s position, finding the claims were limitable.^[7] The Full Court overturned that decision, finding they were not. The matter was appealed to the High Court.^[8]

High Court Judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that under Australian law, claims under Art 2(1)(d) or (e) of the Limitation Convention (disapplied by s 6 of the Limitation Act) were not limitable, even if they also fell within the scope of other provisions of the Limitation Convention which had been adopted by Australia.

Article 18(1) of the Limitation Convention gives signatory States the option to exclude certain categories of claims from the limitation of liability regime, relevantly, those in Art 2(1)(d) and (e).^[9] Australia exercised that option by   s 6 of the Limitation Act, thereby disapplying Art 2(1)(d) and (e) of the Limitation Convention.^[10] The High Court held Australia's exclusion must be given its full, ordinary meaning.^[11] As Australia elected to exclude Art 2(1)(d) and (e), all claims falling within those categories are outside the limitation regime altogether.^[12] The exclusion is directed at the substance of the claims, not the label or characterisation attached to it.

Article 18 is a fundamental part of the structure and operation of the Limitation Convention, and must be read with Art 2.^[13] When a State exercises the reservation power, it elects what genre of claims are limitable, and which are not.^[14] That election would be negated if claims which the State sought to exclude, nonetheless were limitable by re-classification or reframing. That would deprive Art 18 of any substantive operation,^[15]  and would be illogical. Hence, if a State excluded wreck removal claims from the limitation regime, claims for those costs do not become limitable simply by being re-framed as claims for "property damage".^[16]

The High Court also emphasised the need for international comity in the interpretation of international conventions, noting that an international treaty should have consistent application across signatory States, and that interpretations adopted by apex courts in other jurisdictions should be given considerable weight.^[17] By aligning with overseas decisions such as Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) PT Pertamina v Trevaskis Ltd [2023] HKCFA 20 (Star Centurion), the High Court ensured that Australia’s law remains coherent with other leading maritime jurisdictions.^[18]

The High Court’s interpretation is supported by the travaux préparatoires of the Limitation Convention, the 1996 Protocol to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976,^[19] and by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969^[20], which recognises that reservations modify the legal effect of treaty provisions for the reserving State.

Importantly, the High Court made clear that the issue was not about choosing between different paragraphs within Art 2(1).^[21] Rather, it concerned the fundamental operation of Art 18 and its impact on Art 2 as a whole – an Art 18 reservation, once made, determines whether a category of claims is within or outside the limitation regime.^[22]  Australia’s reservation operates on an “all or nothing” basis - a claim falling within Art 2(1)(d) or (e), such as wreck removal, is not limitable  at all, regardless of how it might otherwise be characterised.

Practical Implications

The High Court’s decision has significant consequences for the maritime industry in Australia, and potentially further afield. It confirmed:

• where an international convention allows for reservations, they must be given their full and ordinary effect in substance. The Convention must be interpreted as a coherent whole with operative provisions (like Art 18) decisively shaping the scope of other provisions (like Art 2).
• the Vienna Convention recognises that reservations modify the legal effect of treaty provisions - excluded provisions do not apply to the reserving State to the extent of the reservation.
• Shipowners cannot limit liability for wreck removal in Australia. The financial burden for such losses fall squarely onto the responsible shipowner, with potential significant unlimited financial exposure for such losses.
• substance will prevail over form in the classification of claims -parties cannot reframe claims to circumvent the reservation of certain provisions.
• the maritime industry can expect increased focus on P&I cover, contractual risk allocation, and proactive risk mitigation;the maritime industry can expect increased focus on P&I cover, contractual risk allocation, and proactive risk mitigation.
• The “polluter pays” principle is reinforced, with the High Court providing certainty on the shipowner's extent of liability for wreck removal and associated losses.   It removes the ability to limit liability for such claims by recharacterizing the nature of the claim.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_{[1] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [40].}

_{[2] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [43].}

_{[3] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [43].}

_{[4] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [85].}

_{[5] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 provides a useful framework for interpreting treaties.}

_{[6] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [86].}

_{[7] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [86].}

_{[8] Art 2(1)(d) relates to claims in respect of "raising, removal, destruction or rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked…"}

_{[9] Art 2(1)(a) relates to claims for loss or damage to property "in direct connexion with the operation of the ship or with salvage operations, and consequential loss resulting therefrom."}

_{[10]      CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [1].}

_{[11] Art 2(1)(d) relates to claims in respect of "raising, removal, destruction or rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked…"  Art 2(1)(e) relates to claims in respect of "the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of the cargo of the ship."}

_{[12] In accordance with Art 18(1) of the Limitation Convention.}

_{[13] Art 2(1)(a) relates to claims for loss or damage to property "in direct connexion with the operation of the ship or with salvage operations, and consequential loss resulting therefrom."}

_{[14] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [3].}

_{[15] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [3].}

_{[16] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [77].}

_{[17] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [76].}

_{[18] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [81].}

_{[19] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [78].}

_{[20] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [79].}

_{[21] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [80].}

_{[22] CSL Australia Pty Ltd and Tasmania Ports Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors [2026] HCA 15, [40].}