Singapore: Implementation of 1996 Protocol to LLMC 1976

On 29 December 2019, Singapore implemented the Protocol of 1996 to Amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “1996 Protocol”).

For (i) a brief background on the 1996 Protocol and (ii) a comparison of the limits under the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 and the limits under the 1996 Protocol (as amended in 2012), please refer to the UK P&I Club’s legal update dated 31 January 2019[1].

Singapore’s limits of liability for maritime claims are now as follows:

Tonnage (GT)

Claims for loss of life or personal injury (SDR)

Other claims (SDR)

<2,000

3,020,000

1,510,000

 

2,001-30,000

3,020,000 + 1,208/ton over 2,000 tons

 

1,510,000 + 604/ton over 2,000 tons

 

30,001–70,000

36,844,000 + 906/ton over 30,000 tons

 

18,422,000 + 453/ton over 30,000 tons

 

>70,000

73,084,000 + 604/ton over 70,000 tons

36,542,000 + 302/ton over 70,000 tons

The implementation of the 1996 Protocol does not apply in relation to any liability arising out of an occurrence which took place before 29 December 2019.  

[1] https://www.ukpandi.com/knowledge-publications/article/legal-update-singapore-intention-to-implement-the-1996-protocol-to-llmc-1976-and-the-international-convention-on-salvage-1989-147131/

Staff Author

Date03/01/2020

Source UK P&I

Tags

You may also be interested in:

Articles

Members will recall that substantial increases in the liability limits set by the 1976 London Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) as amended by the 1996 LLMC Protocol, were agreed by the IMO Legal Committee in 2012.

Opinion

In 2005, Hong Kong finally adopted the 1996 Protocol’s limitation levels, which came into play locally on 3 May 2015. Since then, the negotiations have continued between participating member states on amendments to the limitation levels.

Articles

The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 sets uniform rules relating to the limitation of liability for maritime claims.

Quarterly Case Review

Bunker spill from an oil and chemical tanker in ballast – Is the tanker a “ship” as defined in the CLC Convention when in ballast, and not carrying persistent oil?- Is limitation to be determined under CLC 1992 or the Bunker Convention 2001/ LLMC 76/96?