Final ruling in the 69.1-ton C9 aromatic hydrocarbon marine pollution case: Concealment does not exempt from liability; full compensation required for aggravated damages.

The "Ecological Environment Code of the People's Republic of China" will officially come into effect on August 15, 2026. On the eve of the Code's implementation, on August 14, the Supreme People's Court released six typical cases regarding the judicial protection of the marine ecological environment. Among them, the "Case of Compensation for Damages Caused by Oil Leakage During Wharf Operations by the 'Tian Mou 1' Vessel" holds significant exemplary value, further clarifying the boundaries of accountability for underreporting in marine pollution accidents and the applicable rules for limitation of liability for maritime claims.

The accident in this case occurred in the early morning of a certain day in November 2018. The chemical tanker "Tian Mou 1" docked at a wharf of a petrochemical company in Fujian to conduct lightering operations for non-persistent oil cracked C9. The materials were transported from onshore storage tanks to the ship's cabins via oil transfer hoses. During the operation, due to violations by both the ship and shore sides, the oil transfer hose ruptured, and a total of 69.1 tons of C9 materials leaked into the sea, triggering a major marine environmental pollution incident.

After the accident occurred, the involved petrochemical company and the bareboat charterer of the "Tian Mou 1" engaged in malicious collusion and uniformly lied about the leakage amount, falsely reporting the actual leakage of 69.1 tons as 6.91 tons, which directly delayed the golden window for emergency response. The pollution continued to spread, eventually affecting 13 square kilometers of sea area, accompanied by the spillage of volatile organic compounds, causing dual pollution to the sea area and the atmosphere. This accident not only caused the destruction of marine aquaculture resources, damage to the benthic habitat ecological environment, and the loss of marine environmental capacity but also led to the impairment of regional atmospheric ecological functions, resulting in multiple ecological and economic losses.

After the incident, the Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau filed a lawsuit in accordance with the law, requesting that multiple parties, including the involved petrochemical company, the owner of the "Tian Mou 1", the bareboat charterer, and the ship manager, be held jointly and severally liable. They claimed compensation for various losses such as emergency response costs, loss of marine ecosystem service functions, loss of marine environmental capacity, atmospheric environmental losses, and investigation and assessment fees, totaling over 19 million yuan. During the litigation process, the ship side voluntarily applied to establish a limitation fund for maritime claims. In response, the Municipal Ecology and Environment Bureau argued that the ship and shore sides colluded to conceal accident information and delay disposal, which directly led to the further expansion of losses, and that the involved ship side should not enjoy the right to limit liability for maritime claims according to law.

The Xiamen Maritime Court, after trial, issued a first-instance judgment: this C9 leakage accident was caused by violations during the joint ship-to-shore lightering operation. The involved petrochemical company and the owner and bareboat charterer of the "Tian Mou 1" constituted joint infringement and needed to bear joint and several liability for the accident losses; the ship manager, for failing to fulfill statutory safety management obligations, bore 15% of the liability by proportion. The court also clarified that although the involved sea area subsequently completed natural restoration, losses such as the consumption of marine environmental capacity and the depreciation of ecological service functions occurring during the persistence of the pollution objectively existed, and relevant compensation claims should be supported according to law.

Regarding the core issue of limitation of liability, the court determined that the bareboat charterer participated in the collusion to conceal the truth and allowed the losses to expand, thereby losing the right to limit liability for maritime claims according to law; however, the ship owner, having no subjective intent or reckless violations, could enjoy the limitation of liability for maritime claims according to law. Finally, the court ruled that the involved ship side and the petrochemical company shall jointly and severally compensate for various losses amounting to over 10 million yuan, and the ship manager shall bear 15% of the supplementary liability.

After the first-instance judgment was rendered, the relevant ship subjects of the "Tian Mou 1" refused to accept the judgment and filed an appeal. After trial, the Fujian Higher People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment in the second instance. Thereafter, the ship side still applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial on the grounds that the original judgment incorrectly applied the rules for limitation of liability for maritime claims.

The Supreme People's Court, upon review, held that ships and involved enterprises have a statutory obligation to truthfully report marine pollution accidents. Accurately reporting the type of pollutants, the quantity of leakage, and the cause of the accident is a core prerequisite for ensuring rapid accident disposal and curbing pollution spread. In this case, the malicious collusion between the ship and shore sides to conceal the accident directly led to the continuous expansion of pollution losses. If such subjects were allowed to enjoy the limitation of liability for maritime claims, it would not only violate the legislative intent of the system and be detrimental to the strict protection of the marine ecological environment, but also trigger negative judicial guidance and industry demonstration effects. Ultimately, the Supreme People's Court ruled in accordance with the law to reject the ship side's application for retrial.

As a typical benchmark case on the eve of the implementation of the Ecological Environment Code, this case clearly delineates the boundaries of responsibility for various parties in marine pollution accidents. It clarifies that subjects who conceal reports, delay disposal, and allow losses to expand will lose their eligibility for limitation of liability for maritime claims, providing important judicial guidance for China's marine ecological environment judicial protection and severe punishment of pollution underreporting behaviors.