美国最高法院于3月30日下达了对Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.（简称“Carco公司”）, et al. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. et al.一案（简称Athos I号案）的判决，维持了第三巡回上诉法院的裁决，即由于转租租约中包含“安全泊位”条款，转租船人CARCO公司有责任向船东赔偿一起重大污染事件的全部清污费用。此案带来的警示是：条款的措辞可能适用于租约“链”中的某一方，而该方可能并不是相关条款所属合同的实际签署方。
此案还体现了在美国处理污染案件的高昂代价，以及随之而来的冗长诉讼。我们协会的美国律师兼污染专家Frank Gonynor介绍了Athos I号案判决的一些细节。并且，由于其中涉及的大多数租约都适用英国法，我们也邀请英国律师Adrian Moylan发表评论。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Charterparty ‘chain reaction’ The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the ‘Athos I’ case
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 30th issued its decision in Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (‘Carco’), et al. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. et al. (the ‘Athos I’ case), affirming the Third Circuit Court of Appeals holding that CARCO as sub-charterer was responsible, via the ‘safe berth’ clause in its sub-charter, to the vessel owner to indemnify for all of the costs of a major pollution cleanup. The case is a cautionary tale of the wording of clauses which may apply to a party that is in the ‘chain’ of charter parties but was not an actual signatory to the contract containing the clause in question.
The case also illustrates the high costs of pollution cases in the United States and the commensurate lengthy litigation that can ensue. Our US lawyer and pollution expert, Frank Gonynor, discusses the specifics of the ‘Athos I’ decision and, since most charter parties incorporate English law, we asked Adrian Moylan, an English Solicitor, to comment as well.
See attached file: Charterparty ‘chain reaction’ The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the ‘Athos I’ case.pdf
