Maritime Transport Act 1994

Protection of marine environment from hazardous ships, structures, and offshore operations

251: Right to compensation

You could also call this:

"Getting paid back for losses caused by the Director's actions"

Illustration for Maritime Transport Act 1994

You can get compensation if you have spent money or suffered loss or damage because of something the Director did under section 248 or section 249. This can happen if the Director's action was not necessary to protect the marine environment. You can recover compensation from the Crown if the action was not necessary. You can also get compensation if the good done by the Director's action is less than the expense or loss you suffered. If you make a claim, the court will look at things like the risk of a harmful substance being discharged into the sea. The court will also consider how effective the Director's action was and the extent of the loss or damage caused. The court's decision will help determine if you can get compensation from the Crown. You may be able to recover compensation if the court decides in your favour. This means you can get money back for the expenses or losses you suffered.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM337338.

This page was last updated on 4 January 2026 — View changes

Topics:

Environment and resources > ConservationMoney and consumer rights > Consumer protection

Part 20Protection of marine environment from hazardous ships, structures, and offshore operations

251Right to compensation

Any person who has incurred expense, or suffered loss or damage, as a result of any action duly taken under instructions issued by the Director under section 248 or section 249, or as a result of any measure taken by the Director under either of those sections, may recover compensation from the Crown if the action or measure—
was not reasonably necessary—
1. to protect the marine environment or marine interests from a harmful substance; or
2. to prevent or reduce the risk of a harmful substance being discharged into the sea; or
was such that the good done by the action or measure, or the good likely to be done, was disproportionately less than the expense incurred, or the loss or damage suffered, as a result of that action or that measure.

Where a claim is brought against the Crown for compensation under this section, the court, in determining whether subsection (1)(b) applies, shall take into account—
the probability of a harmful substance being discharged into the sea if the action or measure had not been taken; and
the likelihood of the action or measure taken being effective; and
the extent of the loss or the damage which has been caused by the action or measure taken.

Compare

1974 No 14 s 27