The Stolt Advance, a chemical tanker, ran aground on a reef in Malaysian waters.  The Stolt Advance was neither an oil tanker nor was it carrying a cargo of oil, but the grounding ruptured its tanks and oil escaped into the sea and washed into Singapore waters. 

The Port of Singapore Authority (the first defendant) took measures to remove or eliminate the oil in order to prevent and reduce damage caused by the oil pollution. The first defendant incurred expenses amounting to SGD 1,376,468. The first defendant relied on s 14 of the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act 1971 (PPSA 1971) (which was enacted to give effect to art 3 of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954 (OILPOL 1954)) to recover the costs of such measures from the owners of the Stolt Advance (the plaintiff). 

The plaintiff sought to rely on s 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1981 (MSOPA 1981) (which was passed to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC 1969)) in terms of which the plaintiff would be entitled to limit its liability. 

The first defendant argued that the MSOPA 1981 was not applicable to this case because the MSOPA 1981 was intended to impose strict liability on owners of ships carrying oil in bulk, ie oil tankers. A 'ship' under s 2 of the MSOPA 1981 (the equivalent of art 1.1 of the CLC 1969) was therefore defined as any sea-going vessel carrying oil in bulk as cargo. The first defendant submitted that s 18 of the MSOPA 1981 (the equivalent of art 5 of the CLC 1969 which limits liability) does not apply to the Stolt Advance because the Stolt Advance was not a ship carrying oil in bulk as cargo. Further, the world 'liability' under s 18(2) of the MSOPA which allows the limitation of liability referred to common law liability and not statutory liability under s 14 of the PPSA 1971.

Held: Dismissing the plaintiff's claim to limit its liability and holding that the plaintiff is liable to the first defendant for the costs incurred in preventing or reducing the oil pollution.

The court held that the word 'ship' is clearly defined by s 2 of the MSOPA 1981 and unless the context otherwise required, the word 'ship' under s 18 of the MSOPA 1981 was to bear its defined meaning. There was nothing in the context of that section which required 'ship' to be defined in any other way. Further, by defining 'ship' in the manner it had done in the MSOPA 1981, Parliament had decided to give effect to the intention of the CLC 1969 by following the definition of 'ship' under art 1.1 of the CLC 1969 and this would mean that only sea-going vessels carrying oil in bulk as cargo would be covered. 

With regard to the liability under s 18 of the MSOPA 1981, the court held that such liability is liability at common law and not statutory law. Under s 18 of the MSPOA 1981, the tortfeasor is only liable for the costs of preventive measures if it incurs or might have incurred a liability but for those measures. If liability under s 18 of the MSOPA 1981 was to include statutory liability, then it must follow that the tortfeasor had in any case already incurred statutory liability and if so, it would be pointless and absurd for Parliament to replicate that same liability in that section. As a corollary to that, the liability under s 18 of the MSOPA 1981 was not intended to refer to the statutory liability under s 14 of the PPSA 1971 and the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to limit its liability.