Court battle over Darwin Harbour oil spill continues to bounce around Territory courts

THE NT Government’s long-running fight to bring a foreign company responsible for causing an oil spill in Darwin Harbour to justice continues to bounce its way around the ­Territory’s courts.

An aerial view of Darwin and Darwin Harbour, where an oil spill caused a 30km slick in 2016. Picture: Amos Aikman

• Supreme Court to consider whether foreigners are immune to NT law once overseas
• NT EPA criticised for lack of action after Darwin Harbour oil spill
• NT EPA still investigating Darwin Harbour oil spill
• ‘Significant’ oil spill in Darwin Harbour

THE NT Government’s long-running fight to bring a foreign company responsible for causing an oil spill in Darwin Harbour to justice continues to bounce its way around the ­Territory’s courts.

In August 2016, oil from the MV Antung spilt into the harbour, creating a 30km-long slick; the ship’s master, owner and manager were all charged with offences under the Marine Pollution Act.

The MV Antung has since been renamed the MCP London and its owner, a Dutch company, has been deregistered but the Environment Department continues to pursue its former master — a Philippines resident whose whereabouts is unknown.

The department’s action includes the ship’s manager, Ocean Shipmanagement, a company registered in Greece.

Earlier this year, the NT Government moved to close a loophole that potentially allowed foreign nationals to escape punishment for polluting NT waters but in March, Local Court judge John Neill raised concerns that the court had no jurisdiction to issue summonses on foreign soil in any event.

MORE NT COURT NEWS

Alice Springs dope dealer, 62, could face deportation

Prison meth dealer to serve time behind bars herself

Wife killer appeal win sparks calls for DV courts in Darwin

Mr Neill referred the question to the Supreme Court for guidance and last week the higher court ruled it had no part to play in determining the Local Court’s jurisdiction.

Judge Judith Kelly found there was no NT legislation that expressly or implicitly bestowed power on the Local Court to summons the alleged offenders.

“Nor do that act and regu­lations empower the Local Court to request the Attorney-General of the commonwealth to make a request to the Hellenic Republic to assist in the service of the summons,” Justice Kelly said.

“If, as is the case, the answer to each of the referred questions is no, the applicant has requested this court to comment on the capacity of the Local Court to make rules which would authorise the service of its summonses outside Australia,” she wrote.

“In support of this request, counsel for the applicant helpfully supplied examples of three instances in which Australian inferior courts have made rules providing for service of originating process abroad where the enabling rule making power does not refer specifically to service abroad.”

LIMITED TIME: New NT News subscription offer: $1 a week for first 12 weeks

Justice Kelly said resolution of the issue was “entirely a matter for the Local Court, taking advice, if thought necessary, from an appropriate source”.

“I do not think it appropriate for me to give what would effectively be an advisory opinion, not necessary for the determination of any contro­versy before the court.”

Follow @jas_walls