The problem of pure economic loss in the law relating to ship-source oil pollution damage

Conclusion

The discrepancy between some decisions of British courts and a number of decisions of the IOPC Funds raises a few interesting points, in particular the likelihood that there will be discrepancies between — on the one hand — decisions emanating from national courts implementing national legislation, in particular where courts in one state decide to apply general domestic law to the national law implementing the international conventions, and — on the other hand — courts in other states which may give a quasijudicial status to the decisions of the IOPC Fund and follow such rulings. This is a problem which may be very hard to solve. One solution may be the creation of an international adjudicating tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction to deal with claims for shipsource oil pollution damage.However, it is probably early days for states to be asked to give up their jurisdiction in relation to this subject. Another solution which has been suggested is for courts in States that are parties to CLC and the Fund Convention to attribute persuasive value to decisions of the IOPC Fund Executive Committee and Assembly. However, the latter suggestion is more illusory than real, because it is not compatible with principles of fairness and natural justice; effectively, it means the grant of the status of precedent to decisions of one of the parties to a litigation. Another possibility — which only partly solves the problem — is for the courts in one State to give at least persuasive value to decisions of courts in another State party to the Convention.