Decision ID: 001589

In October 2004 the 1992 Fund Executive Committee noted that in pleadings submitted to the Supreme Court the claimants had argued that the Court of Appeal had considered an issue that had not been pleaded in holding that it could not support the view that there were oil residues from the Slops’ last voyage at the time of the incident, and had further argued that the definition of ‘ship’ introduced a rebuttable presumption that there were residues on board and that the Fund had not rebutted this presumption. The Committee endorsed the Director’s intention to submit pleadings, drawing attention in particular to the fact that it was not possible that the residues from previous voyages had remained on board, and arguing that in any event, the alleged rebuttable presumption would not apply in this case. The Committee also endorsed the Director’s intention to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to 1992 Fund Resolution No.8 adopted in May 2003, which stated that national courts in States Parties to the 1992 Conventions should take into account the decisions of the governing bodies of the 1992 Fund and the 1971 Fund relating to the interpretation of the Conventions.