Chapter 7: Salvage

Chapter 7:

Salvage�

§7-1 Thehistoryofsalvageanditslaw

§7-2 Applicablelaw§7-2.� Section6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct,�983§7-2.2 TheWreckandSalvageAct,�996andTheInternationalConventionon

Salvage,�989

§7-3 Generalprinciplesofsalvagelaw:equityandpublicpolicy

§7-4 Essentialelementsoftraditionalsalvage:§7-4.� Salvagecircumstances

§7-4.�.� voluntariness§7-4.�.2 danger§7-4.�.3 success

§7-4.2 Salvedmaritimeproperty§7-4.3 SalvedFund§7-4.4 Salvor’smisconduct

§7-5 LifeSalvage

§7-6 Thetankerphenomenon:fundamentalchangestotraditionalsalvage

§7-7 Lloyd’sStandardForm,LOF1980–95

§7-8 Specialcompensation:thenewregime

§7-9 Submissionandpreparationofsalvageclaims

§7-10 Enforcement,security,arbitrationandappeal

� Forgeneralreferenceworksonthesubjectofsalvage,seeKennedyThe Law of Salvage5thEdition,�985;BriceMaritime Law of Salvage2ndEdition,�993;VincenziniInternational Salvage Law 1992;HillMaritime Law4thEdition,�995Chapter7at3�3et seq;ChorleyandGilesShipping Law 8thEdition,�987Chapter24at427et seq.ForSouthAfricanlawofsalvage,butbeforethe�989InternationalConventiononSalvage,seeBamfordThe Law of Shipping and Carriage in South Africa3rdEdition,Chapter7;VanNiekerkAn Introduction to the South Africa Law of Salvage, Towage & General Average(UNISASpecialPublication,�985).Thelocus classicussalvagechronicleisFarleyMowat’sThe Serpent’s Coil,PubSealBooks,�96�,outofprintbutavailablethrough<www.amazon.com>.

Chapter 7.indd 277 4/20/06 1:00:37 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

TherootsofsalvageinSouthAfrica’sowncomparativelyshorthistoricalcontext,alsorundeep.

ThefirstdocumentedinstanceofsalvageinSouthAfricawasanentryinthejournaloftheDutch

pioneersettlerattheCape,Jan Van Riebeeck,on�7April�656:

‘During the night the cable of the Olifant broke as a result of the carelessness ofthe watchmen, and the vessel drifted close to the sand dunes of the Lion’s Rump.Fortunatelyshemissedthenumerousrocksandgotontoasandbank,notwithoutdan-gerofbeingwreckedasshewashittingthebottomsomewhat;butasshehadmissedtherocks…shewasgotoffonthemorningofthe�8thwiththeaidofallavailableandaftergreateffort,andbrought towhere theothershipswereanchored.Not theslightestleakageorotherdamagehadbeencausedbythegrounding.…AlmightyGodbepraisedforthesafetyofthesaidship.’5

LittledidVan RiebeeckknowthathisjournalentryforthatstormydayattheCapesomanycen-

turiesagohadthemakingsofafinedefinitionofsalvage:asalvageservicerenderedtomaritime

property,dangertosalvedvessel,astouteffortbysalvors,eventualsuccessandasalvedfund.

HadthesalvorsoftheOlifantsoughtareward,theywoulddoubtlesshavefoundsupportinthe

Dutchlawsofthetime.FortheDutchinstitutionalwritersofRoman-Dutchlawinthe�7thcentury

recordedadevelopedsalvagelaw,alreadyshowingsomeofthegeneralprinciplesoftoday’stra-

ditionalsalvagelaw.6Byfarthemostimportanttimeinthehistoryofsalvagelawhowever,was

tofollowinthe�9thcentury,largelyasaconsequenceoftheindustrialrevolutioninEurope,and

moreparticularlybecauseofthedevelopmentofthesteamtugintheearlypartofthatcentury.For

thefirsttimeinhistory,coastalandlaterblue-watersalvagecouldbeundertakenwithoutdepend-

anceuponeitherafavourablewindorastrongarmattheoar.Thecoal-firedsteamtugchanged

thefaceofsalvageandtowageforever.7

5 ThefollowingRoman-Dutchwritershavecoveredsalvagelawtoagreaterorlesserextentinthepassagesindicated:Grotius2.4.36;3.29.4;3.29.�0-�4.HuberDecisFris.�-�0;3.44.Van Leeuwen 2.3.8&9.(andgenerallyonwreckandabandonmentCensura Forensis3.9.and�.4.29).GroenewegenII.�8;Van der Keessel�93.8;784-795;Van der Linden4.5;Voet�4.2;4�.�.9;47.9.Byreasonofs6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct,however,Roman-DutchlawofsalvagehasbeendisplacedbyEnglishlawandinternationalconvention.Seefurther,§7-2.


7 ThattheAdmiraltyCourtwasgreatlyimpressedbytheadventofsteam,andthesalvagecapabilityitunleashedisapparentfromthecommentsofDrLushingtoninThe Kingalock�64ER�53at�55:

‘TheprincipleIhavealwaysendeavouredtofollowisthis,thatwhensteamersrendersalvageservicetheyareentitledtoagreaterrewardthananyothersetofsalvorswhorenderthesameservice;andforthisplainandobviousreason:inconsequenceofthepowertheypossess,theycanperformsuchserviceswithinfinitelygreaterceleritythanothervessels,withinfinitelygreatersafetytothevesselindanger,andfrequentlyundercircumstancesinwhichnootherassistancecouldbypossibilityprevail.’

§7-1 Thehistoryofsalvageanditslaw

TheSouthAfricancoastlineislongandfoul.Overthecenturies,sincemarinersfirstattempted

tocircumnavigateAfricaintheirquestfortherichesoftheEast,manyshipshavecometogrief

onitsshores.TheCapeofGoodHope,andCapeAgulhasatthesouthernmosttipoftheAfrican

continent,arenotoriousamongseafarerstheworldover.Itishardlysurprisingthereforethatthe

SouthAfrican coastline has seen regular and sometimes spectacular feats of salvage.And for

nearly30years,therehasbeenacontinuouspresenceofsalvagetugsonstationinSouthAfrican

ports,readytoputtoseainanyemergency,particularlywherethereisathreatofoilpollution.2

Maritime salvage is a truly ancient concept. In 460 BC, the Greek historian Heroditus wrote

ofXerxeshiringScyllias,adiver, tosalvage treasurefromPersianvesselswreckedoffMount

Pelion.3Amilleniumlater,theislandersofRhodesrecordedascaleofsalvagerewardsdirectly

proportionate to the depths from which goods were salvaged. The surviving Rhodian law of

salvage,circa the8thcentury,reads:

‘Ifashipiscapsizedorislostatsea,whoeversavesanythingoutofitshallreceiveafifthportionofitascompensationforthesalvage.Ifgoldorsilverareraisedfromthebottomoftheseaateightfathomsdepth,thesalvorshallreceiveonethird.Ifatfifteenfathoms,heshallreceiveonehalf.Incasepropertyiscastashoreandfoundwithinadistanceofonecubit,thesalvorshallreceiveonetenthpartofthegoodssalved.’4

2 Sincetheearly�970stheSouthAfricangovernmenthassubsidisedthepresenceofoneofthetwolocallyowneddeep-seasalvagetugsontheSouthAfricanseaboardatalltimes.InthisrespectSouthAfricahasledtheworldintakingaproactivestancetoavertmaritimedisasters.ThetwoSouthAfricantugs,theJohn RossandtheWolraad Woltemade,eachwithmainenginesdelivering�9200bhp,wereatonestagetheworld’smostpowerfulsalvagetugs.Forthetug’sdetails,seethewebsiteoftheirowners,PentowMarine<www.marine-salvage.com/pentow.htm>.AfterthelossoftheBraerofftheShetlandIslandsin�993,andupontherecommendationsoftheDonaldsonReportSafer Ships, Cleaner Seas,theBritishgovernmentadoptedasimilarattitudeinsponsoringthepermanentstationingof‘EmergencyTowingVessels’(ETV’s)inBritishwaters.TheDutchandGermanadministrationshavefollowedsuit,andtheFrenchnavyhasacontractfortheemploymentoftwotugstoremainonstationontheFrenchcoast.SeethepaperofHoddinottDevelopment of the UK Coastguard Emergency Towing Vesselpresentedtothe�5thInternationalTugandSalvageConvention,November�998.CaptHoddinottnotesthatinthefourwinterssinceETV’swereintroduced,fivemajorincidentsinEuropehavebeenavertedasadirectresultofETVpreparedness.

3 Heroditus(484–424BC)The History,translatedbyLittlebury(�720).ItseemsthatScyllias’salvagecontractwassomewhatloose,becauseheabandonedthesalvageduringtheoperationandswambacktohisGreekfellows.

4 The EclogaChapXXXVII,attributedtothe8thcenturyAD.Seefurther,§�-2,fn23.ThelaterRhodianLawdealtextensivelywithsalvageinChaptersXLV–XLVII.SeeSanbornOrigins of the Early English Maritime and Commercial

Law,�930(ReprintbyProfessionalBooksLtd,�989)at38/9.SalvageisdealtwithalsointheConsols de la Marre-statedintheBlack Book of the AdmiraltyVolIIIat6��–63�,uponwhichsee§�-2.Forashortsummaryofhistoricaloriginsofsalvage,seealsoBrice, op cit,at§�-�0.

278 §7-1salvage

Chapter 7.indd 278 4/20/06 1:00:37 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

TherootsofsalvageinSouthAfrica’sowncomparativelyshorthistoricalcontext,alsorundeep.

ThefirstdocumentedinstanceofsalvageinSouthAfricawasanentryinthejournaloftheDutch

pioneersettlerattheCape,Jan Van Riebeeck,on�7April�656:

‘During the night the cable of the Olifant broke as a result of the carelessness ofthe watchmen, and the vessel drifted close to the sand dunes of the Lion’s Rump.Fortunatelyshemissedthenumerousrocksandgotontoasandbank,notwithoutdan-gerofbeingwreckedasshewashittingthebottomsomewhat;butasshehadmissedtherocks…shewasgotoffonthemorningofthe�8thwiththeaidofallavailableandaftergreateffort,andbrought towhere theothershipswereanchored.Not theslightestleakageorotherdamagehadbeencausedbythegrounding.…AlmightyGodbepraisedforthesafetyofthesaidship.’5

LittledidVan RiebeeckknowthathisjournalentryforthatstormydayattheCapesomanycen-

turiesagohadthemakingsofafinedefinitionofsalvage:asalvageservicerenderedtomaritime

property,dangertosalvedvessel,astouteffortbysalvors,eventualsuccessandasalvedfund.

HadthesalvorsoftheOlifantsoughtareward,theywoulddoubtlesshavefoundsupportinthe

Dutchlawsofthetime.FortheDutchinstitutionalwritersofRoman-Dutchlawinthe�7thcentury

recordedadevelopedsalvagelaw,alreadyshowingsomeofthegeneralprinciplesoftoday’stra-

ditionalsalvagelaw.6Byfarthemostimportanttimeinthehistoryofsalvagelawhowever,was

tofollowinthe�9thcentury,largelyasaconsequenceoftheindustrialrevolutioninEurope,and

moreparticularlybecauseofthedevelopmentofthesteamtugintheearlypartofthatcentury.For

thefirsttimeinhistory,coastalandlaterblue-watersalvagecouldbeundertakenwithoutdepend-

anceuponeitherafavourablewindorastrongarmattheoar.Thecoal-firedsteamtugchanged

thefaceofsalvageandtowageforever.7



7 ThattheAdmiraltyCourtwasgreatlyimpressedbytheadventofsteam,andthesalvagecapabilityitunleashedisapparentfromthecommentsofDrLushingtoninThe Kingalock�64ER�53at�55:

‘TheprincipleIhavealwaysendeavouredtofollowisthis,thatwhensteamersrendersalvageservicetheyareentitledtoagreaterrewardthananyothersetofsalvorswhorenderthesameservice;andforthisplainandobviousreason:inconsequenceofthepowertheypossess,theycanperformsuchserviceswithinfinitelygreaterceleritythanothervessels,withinfinitelygreatersafetytothevesselindanger,andfrequentlyundercircumstancesinwhichnootherassistancecouldbypossibilityprevail.’

§7-1 279history

Chapter 7.indd 279 4/20/06 1:00:38 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

withsalvageheardinSouthAfricatodate,Englishlawhasbeenuniformlyappliedwithoutan

apparentneedtojustifydoingso.�2Itisonlyinrelationtoaspectsofsalvagewhichrelatetowreck

thattheRoman-Dutchlawhashelditsground.�3

Itisperhapsinterestingtoreflectthatpriortothe�9thcentury,Englishlawseemedmorepreoccu-

piedwithawardingprizeforseizingforeignvessels,andwiththeinfamousCornishmenwrecking

ratherthansalvaging.Thewreckersleftlittleforsalvors,whowouldhaveincurrednothanksand

scantrewardforplyingtheiraltruistictradeinEnglishwaters.AndtheCrownjealouslyguarded

its shareofwhat chanceand thewreckersdepositedon its shores.Oneof theearliest salvage

andwreckdecisionsonrecordisthatofSir Henry Constable’s Case,�4whichdefinedtheterms

flotsam,jetsamandlagan.Anumberofcasesofthetime,withnamesrendolentofthespiritin

whichtheywerenodoubtfought–suchasR v 49 Casks of Brandy�5–reflecttheCrown’sdeter-

minationtoclaimitsshareofthespoils,ofteninthefaceofcompetitionfromthelocallords.The

firstpurposefulBritishsalvagelegislationwasenactedin�353byEdwardIII,�6givingtheCrown

the right towreck foundon thehigh seas,but, clearlypandering to thewreckers, still leaving

wreckwashedashore to the jurisdictionof the ‘localauthorities’. ‘Whiskygalore’�7continued

wellintothe�8thcenturyuntilin�753GeorgeIImadeitafelonytoputoutfalsebeaconsandalso

to‘beatwoundorobstructpeopletryingtoescapefromfounderingvessels’.�8Similarlegislation

followedin�809whentheCrownoutlawedthewreckers’barbaricpracticeof‘cuttingofship’s

cablesinharbours,baysandrivers’.�9

Bythe�9thcentury,thebulkofthefinancialbruntofthewrecker’sexploitswasbeingborneby

Lloyd’s underwriters, who had by then operated in concert for nearly 200 years.20 From their

�2 Therearefewerthan40salvagedecisionsreportedintheSouthAfricanlawreportstodate.

�3 SeeChapter4andparticularly§4-�.

�4 Constable v Gamble(�60�)77ER2�8.Flotsamisthatwhichisfoundfloatingatsea,jetsamisthatthrownoverboard,andlaganiscargowhichislostoverboardandbuoyedforfuturerecovery.

�5 R v 49 Casks of Brandy(�836)3Hagg25�.

�6 27EdwIIIc�3.

�7 InComptonMcKenzie’sWhisky Galore,�947,thewreckoftheSSCabinet Ministerprovidedwelcomereliefforthe‘drought’sufferedbycroftersofLittleToddayowingtoalackofwhiskyduringtheSecondWorldWar:

“ADhia,there’ssixhundredthousandbottleswherethiscamefrom.”saidHugh.…Jockeyagreed,inhisvoiceaboundlesscontent.…“We’llchustbesayingthreeHailMarys,Hugh.”“Ay,”theotheragreed,“forfavoursreceived.”

�8 26GeoIIc�9.

�9 49GeoIIIc�22.Thiswasonlyoneofthenefarious,andattimesmurderouspracticesofthewreckersofthetime.

20 See§�9-�forashorthistoryofLloyd’sofLondon.Theinterestsoftheinsurerinrelationtosalvagehadalreadylongbeenrecognised.InThe Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�at347DrLushingtoncommented:

Itwaslargelyduringthis timethat theEnglishAdmiraltyCourtformulatedlawsofsalvageso

comprehensiveandsensible, that theywere to standunchallenged,and largelyunaltered,until

theadventofthetankerphenomenoninthe�960s.8Themostimportantperiod,fromasalvage

perspective,wasbetween�838and�868,whenthe legendaryDrLushingtonwasPresidentof

theAdmiraltyCourt.9OnemaysafelysurmisethatmanyofDrLushington’ssalvageprinciples

becamesowidelyacceptedas tohaveacquired thestatusof internationalcustomarymaritime

law.�0His judgments(andall thoseof theAdmiraltyCourt)wereappealableonlydirect to the

JudicialCommitteeoftheHouseofLords,whichseldomdisturbedhisfindings,especiallythose

whichrelatedtofact.InThe Julia,��LordKingsdownremarked:

‘ButinthesecasesofappealfromtheAdmiraltyCourt,whenthequestionisoneofsea-manship,whereitisnecessarytodetermine,notonlywhatwasdoneoromitted,butwhatwouldbetheeffectofwhatwasdoneoromitted,andhowfar,underthecircumstances,thecoursepursuedwasproperorimproper,theirLordshipscanhavebutslendermeansofforminganopinionforthemselves,andcertainlycannothavebettermeansofforminganopinionthantheJudgeoftheAdmiraltyCourt.Theydonotspeakwithreferencetothedistinguishedpersonwhonowfills,andhassolongfilled,thatoffice,thoughitwouldbeimpossibletoimagineastrongerexampleofthetruthoftheremark.’

DrLushingtonwassucceededasPresidentoftheAdmiraltyCourtbyLordPhillimore.Intheir

hands,thelawofsalvage(andoftowageandpilotage)wasallbutfullyfashionedbytheendof

the�9thcentury.SouthAfrica,bythenaBritishcolony,adoptedthesesoundsalvagetenetsofthe

EnglishAdmiraltyCourt,totheextentthatintherelativelyfewreportedcourtdecisionsdealing

8 Weshallseein§7-6thattheenvironmentalthreatoftheVLCCgaverisetothenecessityforachangeinsomeofthebasicprinciplesofsalvage,notablythe‘no-cure-no-pay’principle.

9 ForanaccountofthelifeandworksofthismostremarkableincumbentoftheAdmiraltybench,seeWaddamsDr Lushington’s Contribution to the Law of SalvageFeb[�989]LMCQ59-80.DrLushingtonwasPresidentoftheAdmiraltyCourtinthehalcyondaysofthedevelopmentofsteam.Morethananyjudgebeforehim,andprobablymorealsothananysince,DrLushingtonmouldedthelawsofsalvage,towageandpilotage.Hewasbothacivilianandacommonlawlawyer.Pragmatic,oftentoanextreme,hefavouredproceedingswhichwere‘summary,expeditiousandinexpensive’(The Harriot (�842)�WRob439at447).Hedidnottakekindlytomattersbeingover-complicated:

‘TheCourthasmuchtolamentinthiscase.Ithastolament,whatevermaybeitsultimatedecision,thatacase,wheretheamountinvolvedissoexceedinglysmallshouldhavebeenbroughtbeforethisjurisdiction.Ithastolamentthegreatmultitudeofaffidavitswhichhavebeenmadeonbothsides;anditviewswithgreatsorrowthecontradictionthatprevailsbetweenthem.’(The Medora(�853)�64ER�0).

From�84�to�866,2653salvagecaseswerebroughtbeforetheAdmiraltyCourt,withabout750reachingdecision.DrLushingtondeliveredmostofthesedecisions,andsome250ofhisjudgmentsarereported.Thetotalnumberofadmiraltycasesduringthisperiodwasjustshortof�0000.

�0 IndeedmanyofthebasicprinciplesoftheInternationalConventiononSalvage,�989anditspredecessor,theBrusselsConventionof�9�0arerestatementsofDrLushington’sprinciples.

�� The Julia(�86�)�5ER284.

280 §7-1Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 280 4/20/06 1:00:38 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

withsalvageheardinSouthAfricatodate,Englishlawhasbeenuniformlyappliedwithoutan

apparentneedtojustifydoingso.�2Itisonlyinrelationtoaspectsofsalvagewhichrelatetowreck

thattheRoman-Dutchlawhashelditsground.�3

Itisperhapsinterestingtoreflectthatpriortothe�9thcentury,Englishlawseemedmorepreoccu-

piedwithawardingprizeforseizingforeignvessels,andwiththeinfamousCornishmenwrecking

ratherthansalvaging.Thewreckersleftlittleforsalvors,whowouldhaveincurrednothanksand

scantrewardforplyingtheiraltruistictradeinEnglishwaters.AndtheCrownjealouslyguarded

its shareofwhat chanceand thewreckersdepositedon its shores.Oneof theearliest salvage

andwreckdecisionsonrecordisthatofSir Henry Constable’s Case,�4whichdefinedtheterms

flotsam,jetsamandlagan.Anumberofcasesofthetime,withnamesrendolentofthespiritin

whichtheywerenodoubtfought–suchasR v 49 Casks of Brandy�5–reflecttheCrown’sdeter-

minationtoclaimitsshareofthespoils,ofteninthefaceofcompetitionfromthelocallords.The

firstpurposefulBritishsalvagelegislationwasenactedin�353byEdwardIII,�6givingtheCrown

the right towreck foundon thehigh seas,but, clearlypandering to thewreckers, still leaving

wreckwashedashore to the jurisdictionof the ‘localauthorities’. ‘Whiskygalore’�7continued

wellintothe�8thcenturyuntilin�753GeorgeIImadeitafelonytoputoutfalsebeaconsandalso

to‘beatwoundorobstructpeopletryingtoescapefromfounderingvessels’.�8Similarlegislation

followedin�809whentheCrownoutlawedthewreckers’barbaricpracticeof‘cuttingofship’s

cablesinharbours,baysandrivers’.�9

Bythe�9thcentury,thebulkofthefinancialbruntofthewrecker’sexploitswasbeingborneby

Lloyd’s underwriters, who had by then operated in concert for nearly 200 years.20 From their

�2 Therearefewerthan40salvagedecisionsreportedintheSouthAfricanlawreportstodate.

�3 SeeChapter4andparticularly§4-�.

�4 Constable v Gamble(�60�)77ER2�8.Flotsamisthatwhichisfoundfloatingatsea,jetsamisthatthrownoverboard,andlaganiscargowhichislostoverboardandbuoyedforfuturerecovery.

�5 R v 49 Casks of Brandy(�836)3Hagg25�.

�6 27EdwIIIc�3.

�7 InComptonMcKenzie’sWhisky Galore,�947,thewreckoftheSSCabinet Ministerprovidedwelcomereliefforthe‘drought’sufferedbycroftersofLittleToddayowingtoalackofwhiskyduringtheSecondWorldWar:

“ADhia,there’ssixhundredthousandbottleswherethiscamefrom.”saidHugh.…Jockeyagreed,inhisvoiceaboundlesscontent.…“We’llchustbesayingthreeHailMarys,Hugh.”“Ay,”theotheragreed,“forfavoursreceived.”

�8 26GeoIIc�9.

�9 49GeoIIIc�22.Thiswasonlyoneofthenefarious,andattimesmurderouspracticesofthewreckersofthetime.

20 See§�9-�forashorthistoryofLloyd’sofLondon.Theinterestsoftheinsurerinrelationtosalvagehadalreadylongbeenrecognised.InThe Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�at347DrLushingtoncommented:

§7-1 281history

Chapter 7.indd 281 4/20/06 1:00:39 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-2.1 Section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, 1983

Salvageisa‘maritimeclaim’definedassuchbys�(i)(k)oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulation

Act,�983:

‘anyclaimfororinthenatureofsalvage,includinganyclaimrelatingtothesharingorapportionmentofsalvageandanyclaimbyanypersonhavinga right in respectofpropertysalvedorwhichwould,butforthenegligenceordefaultofthesalvororwould-besalvor,havebeensaved.’24

Asmaritimeclaims,salvagedisputesfalltobeadjudicatedbytheHighCourtintheexerciseof

itsAdmiraltyjurisdiction.Insuchdisputes,thelawtobeappliedisdeterminedbytheubiquitous

instrumentofcompromise,s6.Salvageofallships,wherevertheymayhavebeensalvaged,was

coveredbythejurisdictionofthe�840EnglishAdmiraltyCourtAct(ins6ofthatAct):25

‘[T]heHighCourtofAdmiralty shall have jurisdiction todetermineall claimsanddemands whatsoever, in the nature of salvage for services rendered, or damagereceived,byanyshiporsea-goingvessel,orinthenatureoftowage,orfornecessar-iessuppliedtoanyforeignshiporsea-goingvessel;andtoenforcepaymentthereof,whethersuchshiporvesselmayhavebeenwithinthebodyofacountyoruponthehighseaatthetimewhentheserviceswererendered,orthedamagereceived,orthenecessariesfurnished,inrespectofwhichsuchclaimismade.’

24 Asalvageclaimwouldalsobecoveredasamaritimelienclaimunderss(y).

25 AdmiraltyCourtAct,�840(3&4Victc69).InThe Ocean(�845)�66ER793DrLushingtonwasrequiredtodecideuponthescopeofs6ofthe�840Actinrelationparticularlytonecessaries,but,insodoing,alsoreferredtosalvage.DrLushingtonruledthatthissectionextendedthethenAdmiraltyjurisdictiontoallships,Britishorforeign,butonlyinrelationtosalvage,damagesandtowage(therebydistinguishingtheeffectofthesectioninrelationtonecessariesclaims):

‘Fromthesewordsitwouldseem,thattheformerportionofthissectionisintendedtorefergenerallytoall‘shipsorsea-goingvessels’,whilstthelatteristoreceiveamorelimitedconstruction,andistobeconfinedexclusivelytoforeignvessels.TheintentionoftheLegislatureinthusframingthesectionis,Iconceive,obviousuponthefaceofit.Beforethestatutewaspassed,allclaimsforsalvage,andallquestionsofdamage,asalsoalldemandsfortowageservices,whenthetransactiontookplacewithinthebodyofacounty,werecognisableintheCourtsofCommonLawalone:ifthisCourthadproceededtoadjudicateinthematter,itwouldhavebeensubjectedtoaprohibition.Fortheconvenienceofpartieswhomightsorenderservicesorreceiveadamage,itwasdeemedexpedienttorestoretheancientjurisdictionoftheCourtofAdmiralty,andinsodoingtogivetheoptionofproceedingbythemoresummaryprocessofthisCourtinsteadofcompellinganactionatlaw.’

DrLushingtonruledfurtherthatthesectionhadamorelimitedeffectinrelationtonecessaries:

‘Withrespectto“necessariessuppliedtoanyforeignshiporsea-goingvessel”,these,Ihavealreadystated,areconfinedexclusivelytoforeignvessels;andtheintentionoftheLegislatureinmakingtheprovisionwas,toremedygreatinconvenienceswhichhadformerlyoccurredincasesofforeignvesselsdrivenbystressofweatheruponthecoastsofthiscountry.Insuchcases,itoftenhappenedthatthemasterhadnocredit,andgreatdifficultieswereexperiencedinprovidingtherequisiterepairs,andinobtainingasupplyofnecessariesforthefurtherprosecutionofthevoyage.’

perspective,encouragementhadtobegiventomarinerstosaveshipsandcargoesindanger,rather

thantospeedthemontheirwaytototallossforthebenefitofwreckers.Insurancebegantoput

thebrakesonwrecking.Thefirst‘Lloyd’sForm’(thoughnotyetthusnamed)wascontractedfor

asalvageoperationintheDardanelles,undertheauspicesoftheCommitteeofLloyd’sin�890,

with the salvor agreeing to abide by the award given him by the Committee of Lloyd’s upon

‘preservationofsomepartofthepropertyinperil’.TheLloyd’sOpenForm(‘LOF’)wasborn.

Thelawofsalvage,bythencrystallisedbytheAdmiraltyCourtinthehandsofthelikesofDr

LushingtonandLordPhillimore,wasbroadenoughtorecognisetheincentivetosalvageprovided

byaformalcontractofsalvageaftertheevent,whichcouldcomfortablybeaccommodatedwithin

existinglegalprinciples.TheLloyd’sFormwassoontobecomethestandardcontractformuchof

theworld’ssalvage.TheinfluenceofLloyd’s,andthearbitrationpracticeitevolvedtodealwith

salvagedisputes,coupledwiththedevelopedEnglishlawofsalvage,ensuredthatbythedawn

ofthe20thcentury,theBritishhadprovidedthemaritimeworldwithaworkable,andtoalarge

extentinternational,customarymaritimelawofsalvage.2�

§7-2 ApplicableLaw

Salvage is an international concept, usually affecting multinational interests and dealing with

aneverevolvingsophisticationof technologyboth in relation to thesalvorand the risks tobe

salvaged.Thelawneedstokeeppacewiththedemandsoftheindustry.22PresentSouthAfrican

salvage lawhasachievedabalanceof traditional salvage law inherited fromEngland,and the

broadly acceptedprinciplesof the InternationalConventiononSalvage, �989.This balance is

largelyreinforcedbytheWreckandSalvageAct,�996.23

‘Allownersofshipsandcargoesandallunderwritersareinterestedinthegreatprincipleofadequateremunerationbeingpaidforsalvageservices;andnonearemoreinterestedthantheunderwritersofcargo.’

2� TheEnglishlawofsalvageformedthebasisofthelawintheUnitedStates.SeeThe Sabine (�879)�0�US384.ProfessorSchoenbaumcomments(SchoenbaumAdmiralty and Maritime law,2ndEdition�994at§�6-�)that‘thegeneralmaritimelawsofsalvagecanbeconsideredasapartofthejus gentium,customaryinternationallaw’.

22 Writingofhowthetraditionalsalvageconceptsofthe�9�0BrusselsConventionhadbeenoutgrown,theCMIreportedin�984:

‘Sincethe�9�0Conventionwasformulatedthetechnicalandeconomicdevelopmentininternationalshippinghas,ofcoursebeenverysignificant.Thedangerstoshipandcargohavebeenreducedwhilethedangerswhichshipandcargorepresentvis-a-visthirdpartyinterests,inparticularrelatingtotheenvironment,havesubstantiallyincreased.Thevaluesofshipandcargohaveincreaseddrasticallyresultinginaheavyconcentrationofrisksonfewerkeels.Totheprofessionalsalvorsthismeansfewer,butmorevaluableopportunities.Salvagetechniqueshaveimprovedsubstantially,buthavebecomefarmorecapitalintensive.Thishashadacertainadverseeffectonthereadyavailabilityofadequatesalvageequipmentalongthesearoutesoftheworld.’

23 Act94of�996.Seefurther§7-2.2.

282 §7-2Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 282 4/20/06 1:00:39 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-2.1 Section 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, 1983

Salvageisa‘maritimeclaim’definedassuchbys�(i)(k)oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulation

Act,�983:

‘anyclaimfororinthenatureofsalvage,includinganyclaimrelatingtothesharingorapportionmentofsalvageandanyclaimbyanypersonhavinga right in respectofpropertysalvedorwhichwould,butforthenegligenceordefaultofthesalvororwould-besalvor,havebeensaved.’24

Asmaritimeclaims,salvagedisputesfalltobeadjudicatedbytheHighCourtintheexerciseof

itsAdmiraltyjurisdiction.Insuchdisputes,thelawtobeappliedisdeterminedbytheubiquitous

instrumentofcompromise,s6.Salvageofallships,wherevertheymayhavebeensalvaged,was

coveredbythejurisdictionofthe�840EnglishAdmiraltyCourtAct(ins6ofthatAct):25

‘[T]heHighCourtofAdmiralty shall have jurisdiction todetermineall claimsanddemands whatsoever, in the nature of salvage for services rendered, or damagereceived,byanyshiporsea-goingvessel,orinthenatureoftowage,orfornecessar-iessuppliedtoanyforeignshiporsea-goingvessel;andtoenforcepaymentthereof,whethersuchshiporvesselmayhavebeenwithinthebodyofacountyoruponthehighseaatthetimewhentheserviceswererendered,orthedamagereceived,orthenecessariesfurnished,inrespectofwhichsuchclaimismade.’

24 Asalvageclaimwouldalsobecoveredasamaritimelienclaimunderss(y).

25 AdmiraltyCourtAct,�840(3&4Victc69).InThe Ocean(�845)�66ER793DrLushingtonwasrequiredtodecideuponthescopeofs6ofthe�840Actinrelationparticularlytonecessaries,but,insodoing,alsoreferredtosalvage.DrLushingtonruledthatthissectionextendedthethenAdmiraltyjurisdictiontoallships,Britishorforeign,butonlyinrelationtosalvage,damagesandtowage(therebydistinguishingtheeffectofthesectioninrelationtonecessariesclaims):

‘Fromthesewordsitwouldseem,thattheformerportionofthissectionisintendedtorefergenerallytoall‘shipsorsea-goingvessels’,whilstthelatteristoreceiveamorelimitedconstruction,andistobeconfinedexclusivelytoforeignvessels.TheintentionoftheLegislatureinthusframingthesectionis,Iconceive,obviousuponthefaceofit.Beforethestatutewaspassed,allclaimsforsalvage,andallquestionsofdamage,asalsoalldemandsfortowageservices,whenthetransactiontookplacewithinthebodyofacounty,werecognisableintheCourtsofCommonLawalone:ifthisCourthadproceededtoadjudicateinthematter,itwouldhavebeensubjectedtoaprohibition.Fortheconvenienceofpartieswhomightsorenderservicesorreceiveadamage,itwasdeemedexpedienttorestoretheancientjurisdictionoftheCourtofAdmiralty,andinsodoingtogivetheoptionofproceedingbythemoresummaryprocessofthisCourtinsteadofcompellinganactionatlaw.’

DrLushingtonruledfurtherthatthesectionhadamorelimitedeffectinrelationtonecessaries:

‘Withrespectto“necessariessuppliedtoanyforeignshiporsea-goingvessel”,these,Ihavealreadystated,areconfinedexclusivelytoforeignvessels;andtheintentionoftheLegislatureinmakingtheprovisionwas,toremedygreatinconvenienceswhichhadformerlyoccurredincasesofforeignvesselsdrivenbystressofweatheruponthecoastsofthiscountry.Insuchcases,itoftenhappenedthatthemasterhadnocredit,andgreatdifficultieswereexperiencedinprovidingtherequisiterepairs,andinobtainingasupplyofnecessariesforthefurtherprosecutionofthevoyage.’

§7-2.1 283applicable law

Chapter 7.indd 283 4/20/06 1:00:40 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Inthischaptertherefore,weshalllookatsalvagethroughitsestablishedandtraditionalgeneral

legalprinciples,atthesametimecross-referencingtotheActandtheConventiontoseetheextent

towhich eitherdependsuponor affects theother.We shall see that theConvention is largely

a re-statementof the traditionalcommon lawof salvage,except to theextent that it caters for

rewardingeffortstoprotectagainstenvironmentaldamage,inwhichrespectitvariesfromthat

traditionallaw.Letus,however,firstpausebrieflytoexaminesomeoftheformalprovisionsof

theWreckandSalvageAct.

§7-2.2.1 Definitions

TheActdefines30a‘ship’as:

‘anyvesselusedorcapableofbeingusedonanywaters,andincludesanyhovercraft,powerboat,yacht,fishingboat,submarinevessel,barge,cranebarge,crane,dock,oilorotherrig,mooringinstallationorsimilarinstallation,whetherfloatingorfixedtothesea-bedandwhetherself-propelledornot’,

andaSouthAfricanshipisoneregisteredordeemedtoregisteredinSouthAfrica.

‘Wreck’isdefinedasincluding:

‘any flotsam, jetsam, laganor derelict, anyportionof a shipor aircraft lost, aban-doned,strandedor indistress,anyportionof thecargo,storesorequipmentofanysuchshiporaircraftandanyportionofthepersonalpropertyonboardsuchshiporaircraftwhenitwaslost,abandoned,strandedorindistress.’

§7-2.2.2 Application and interpretation of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989

Section2(�)oftheActgivestheConventiontheforceoflawinSouthAfrica.3�Ininterpretingthe

Convention,aSouthAfricancourtortribunalisgiventhelibertyto‘considerthepreparatorytexts

totheConvention,decisionsofforeigncourtsandanypublication’.Thetravaux preparatoiresof

theConventionwouldbeavalidsourceininterpretation,aswouldnotonlyforeignjudgments

deliveredaftertheConvention,butalsothoseonsimilarnotionsortermspredatingtheConvention.

ThisprovisionoftheActleavesthedooropentotraditionalsalvagelaw.32Allowingrecourseto

foreignjudgmentsgenerally,andnotespeciallytothoseofEngland,isastepintherightdirection

inliftingthestultifyingmantleofs6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.

30 WreckandSalvageAct,s�.

3� IncludingtheMemorandumonUnderstandingrelatingtoArts�3and�4whichareAttachment�totheConvention.

32 SeeBrice, op cit§�-38at�5,andseethecommentsin§�3-5inrelationtothetravaux preparatoiresoftheHagueRules.

Accordingly,andsubjecttoanyapplicableSouthAfricanstatuteandtoanychoiceoflawrecognised

intermsofs6(5)oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct,Englishlawasat�November�983

wouldapplytosalvagedisputesheardinSouthAfricatoday.Britishcasesanddevelopmentsinthe

lawof salvage since�983wouldbemerelypersuasive.AndRoman-DutchLawwouldhaveno

applicationexceptinrelationtoaspectsofwreck.26

§7-2.2 The Wreck and Salvage Act, 1997 and the International Convention on Salvage, 1989

InordertobringSouthAfricansalvagelawintolinewiththe‘uniforminternationalrulesregard-

ingsalvageoperations’towhichthe�989InternationalConventiononSalvageaspires,27andin

sodoingtoenacttheprovisionstheSalvageConvention,SouthAfricahasenactedtheWreckand

SalvageAct,94of�996,whichcameintoeffecton�February�997.TheActconsolidatesallof

theerstwhileMerchantShippingActprovisionsrelatingtowreckandsalvage,andincludesasa

SchedulethefulltextoftheSalvageConvention,whichisgiventheforceoflaw.28TheWreck

andSalvageActisthereforetheSouthAfricanlawyer’sfirstportofcallwhenseekingthelaw

ofsalvage.Neither theActnor theConventionwhichforms themajorpartof it, ishowevera

completeandexclusivecompendiumof the lawof salvage.To theextent that theActand the

Conventionaresilentuponanypointoflaw,andparticularlyinrelationtotheinterpretationof

termsofartusedintheConventionwhichtheConventionitselfdoesnotdefine,recourseshould

behad to thecommonlawofsalvage.For this reason, the traditional lawofsalvage,notonly

providedthefabricfromwhichtheSalvageConventionwasfashioned,butitremainsrelevant,to

theextentthatitisnotamendedbytheConvention.29

26 ForadiscussionontheapplicationofEnglishlawpers6,see§�-7.SouthAfricancaselawwhichdevelopedupto�983isnowonlypersuasive.Decidingwhichcaselaw–EnglishorSouthAfrican–shouldapplyuponprinciplesofstare decisisisandparticularlycomplex.Since�96�,theAdmiraltysittingoftheHighCourthasbeentotallyindigenous.Anomalously,itisthusarguablethatdecisionsfrom�96�to�983inSouthAfricawouldhaveonlyapersuasiveeffect,notbeinginanywaypartoftheEnglishlawwhichs6imports,andthatevendecisionsofSouthAfrica’sowncourtsafter�983wouldalsobepersuasiveatbest.WhereEnglishlawissilentonanyparticularpoint,theobscurereservationofs6couldhaveaneffect:‘insofarasthatlawcanbeapplied’.ForifthereisnoEnglishlawuponanissue,Roman-DutchLawwouldstillbethefall-backregime.

27 ThestatedobjectofthepreambletotheConvention,referredtohereafteras‘TheSalvageConvention’.

28 TheConventionwasneitheraccededtonorratifiedbytheSouthAfricangovernmentbecauseitwasconsideredthattheConventionwaslackingincertainrespects,particularlyinrelationtoitsapplicationandtothecalculationofArt�4specialcompensation.Seefurther§7-8.Theevolutionofsalvagelawinthedirectionofthe�989Conventionwillbeconsideredin§7-6,andthetermsoftheConventionwillbediscussedwhendealingwiththegeneralprinciplesofsalvagein§7-4.

29 SeeforexampleBrice, op citat§�-57:‘Itissubmittedthat,inaddition,its[aStatePartytotheConvention]domesticlawsmayprobablyaddtotherightscontainedintheConvention,providedthatinsodoingitdoesnotconflictwiththeConvention.’AndcfGaskellThe Enactment of the 1989 Salvage Convention in English Law: Policy Issues[�990]LMCLQ352-363.SeealsoBriceThe New Salvage Convention: Green Seas and Grey Areas[�990]LMCLQ32-63.

284 §7-2.2Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 284 4/20/06 1:00:41 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Inthischaptertherefore,weshalllookatsalvagethroughitsestablishedandtraditionalgeneral

legalprinciples,atthesametimecross-referencingtotheActandtheConventiontoseetheextent

towhich eitherdependsuponor affects theother.We shall see that theConvention is largely

a re-statementof the traditionalcommon lawof salvage,except to theextent that it caters for

rewardingeffortstoprotectagainstenvironmentaldamage,inwhichrespectitvariesfromthat

traditionallaw.Letus,however,firstpausebrieflytoexaminesomeoftheformalprovisionsof

theWreckandSalvageAct.

§7-2.2.1 Definitions

TheActdefines30a‘ship’as:

‘anyvesselusedorcapableofbeingusedonanywaters,andincludesanyhovercraft,powerboat,yacht,fishingboat,submarinevessel,barge,cranebarge,crane,dock,oilorotherrig,mooringinstallationorsimilarinstallation,whetherfloatingorfixedtothesea-bedandwhetherself-propelledornot’,

andaSouthAfricanshipisoneregisteredordeemedtoregisteredinSouthAfrica.

‘Wreck’isdefinedasincluding:

‘any flotsam, jetsam, laganor derelict, anyportion of a shipor aircraft lost, aban-doned,strandedor indistress,anyportionof thecargo,storesorequipmentofanysuchshiporaircraftandanyportionofthepersonalpropertyonboardsuchshiporaircraftwhenitwaslost,abandoned,strandedorindistress.’

§7-2.2.2 Application and interpretation of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989

Section2(�)oftheActgivestheConventiontheforceoflawinSouthAfrica.3�Ininterpretingthe

Convention,aSouthAfricancourtortribunalisgiventhelibertyto‘considerthepreparatorytexts

totheConvention,decisionsofforeigncourtsandanypublication’.Thetravaux preparatoiresof

theConventionwouldbeavalidsourceininterpretation,aswouldnotonlyforeignjudgments

deliveredaftertheConvention,butalsothoseonsimilarnotionsortermspredatingtheConvention.

ThisprovisionoftheActleavesthedooropentotraditionalsalvagelaw.32Allowingrecourseto

foreignjudgmentsgenerally,andnotespeciallytothoseofEngland,isastepintherightdirection

inliftingthestultifyingmantleofs6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.

30 WreckandSalvageAct,s�.

3� IncludingtheMemorandumonUnderstandingrelatingtoArts�3and�4whichareAttachment�totheConvention.

32 SeeBrice, op cit§�-38at�5,andseethecommentsin§�3-5inrelationtothetravaux preparatoiresoftheHagueRules.

§7-2.2 285wreck & salvage act

Chapter 7.indd 285 4/20/06 1:00:41 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-2.2.4 Statutory duty to assist persons and ships in distress

Maritimelawhaslongimposedadutyonvesselstoassistothersindistress.LordStowellinThe

Waterloo37confirmed

‘Itisthedutyofallshipstogivesuccourtoothersindistress;nonebutafreebooterwouldwithholdit.’

Statute law distinguishes between the duty to assist applicable to domestic ships from that of

aforeignflaggedvessel.SouthAfricanshipsmustassistbothpersonsandpropertyindistress.

Foreignshipsarerequiredbystatuteonly torenderassistance todistressedpersons.38TheAct

confirmstheobligationofthemasterofaSouthAfricanshiptoassistallvesselsindistress,under

painofmakinganofficiallogentryexplaininghisfailuretodoso:

‘IfthemasterofaSouthAfricanship,onreceivingatseaasignalofdistressorinfor-mationfromanysourcethatashipisindistress,isunable,orinthespecialcircum-stancesofthecaseconsidersitunreasonableorunnecessary,togototheassistanceofthepersonindistress,heorsheshallforthwithcauseastatementtobeenteredintheofficiallogbook,ofhisorherreasonsfornotgoingtotheassistanceofthatperson.’39

Section6extendsthisobligationtothemasterofallships, localorforeign,wherepersonsare

indistressatsea,ands7requiresthemastersofallshipsinvolvedinacollisionatseatorender

assistanceeachtotheother.Theseobligationswillbeconsideredagaininrelationtotherequire-

mentthatsalvagebevoluntarilyrendered,notinpursuanceofanypre-existingduty.40TheAct

ensuresthatthiscommonlawrequirementofsalvageisnottransgressedbyenactingthat

‘Compliancebythemasterofashipwiththeprovisionsofthissectionshallnotaffecthisorherright,ortherightofanyotherperson,tosalvage.’4�

§7-2.2.5 Formalities in relation to salvage

TheActappointsas‘salvageofficers’‘suitablyqualifiedpersonswhohaveprescribeddutiesand

powers’.Perhapsthemosthistoricpoweristhatofs�3:

‘No person shall, when a ship is wrecked, stranded or in distress, plunder, createdisorderorobstructthepreservationoftheshiporshipwreckedpersonsorthewreck,andthesalvageofficerorhisorherauthorisedrepresentativemaycauseanypersoncontraveningtheprovisionsofthissectiontobedetained.’

37 The Waterloo2Dod437quotedinThe Sappho(�87�)�7ER238at240.

38 Thereseemslittlelogictothisdistinction.

39 WreckandSalvageAct,s5(5).

40 §7-4.�.�.

4� WreckandSalvageAct,s5(6).Inrelationtothedutytoassistaftercollision,sees7(2).

There follow, in s 2, three extensions to the applicability of the Convention which are peculiar

to SouthAfrican law: First a subject of salvage shall include ‘any fixed or floating platform or

anymobileoffshoredrillingunitwhetherornot it is engaged in theexploration, exploitationor

productionofsea-bedmineralresources’.ThisextendstheConventionrequirementthat‘property’be

notpermanentlyandintentionallyattachedtotheshoreline’.33Second,‘damagetotheenvironment’

forpurposesofthenovelArt�4specialcompensationisextendedsothat,unliketheConvention,it

shall‘notberestrictedtocoastalorinlandwatersortoareasadjacentthereto,butshallapplytoany

placewheresuchdamagemayoccur’.Andthird,the‘fairrate’referredtoinArt�4inrelationtoa

salvor’seffortstopreventenvironmentaldamagewhicharenotfullymetbythesuccessfulsalvage

ofthevesselindistress,isdeemed,inSouthAfricanlaw,toincludetheelementofprofitwhichthe

HouseofLordsinThe Nagasaki Spiritruledagainst.34

TheActpreservesasalvageclaimant’smaritimelien.35

§7-2.2.3 Assessors

Section3oftheWreckandSalvageActpreservesthetraditionalstatutoryrightofacourtwhich

ishearinga salvagematter toappointoneormoreadvisoryassessors,whoare required tobe

impartialpersonswhoareconversantwithmaritimeaffairs.36

33 SalvageConventionArt�(c).

34 The Nagasaki Spirit: Semco Salvage & Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd [�997]�Lloyd’sRep323(HL).TheSouthAfricanActwasfinalisedaftertheNagasaki Spiritdisputehadreachedtrial,anditwasgenerallybelievedbythoseresponsibleforthepromotionoftheActthatforArt�4tobeaneffectiveincentiveforsalvorstoundertakehigh-risksalvageofoiltankersindistress,somemeasureofprofitshouldbeincludedinthespecialcompensation.TheActanticipatedapossiblerulingagainstprofitintheappealtotheHouseofLords,whichwasthenpending.Seefurther§7–8

35 WreckandSalvageAct,s2(�0).

36 TheEnglishAdmiraltyCourtwasusuallycalleduponbythepartiestoasalvagemattertocallinTrinityMastersasassessors.InThe Princess Alice(�849)�66ER9�4,wherethepartieshadfailedtodoso,DrLushingtonremarked:

‘Inthiscase(whichappearstometobepeculiarlyopentosuchanapplication),neitherofthepartieshasmadeanyrequesttothiseffect;andtheyhavelefttheCourttoitsownexertionstoelucidatequestionswhichareofnoordinarydifficulty.If,therefore,eitherofthepartiesshouldthinkthat,inthedecisionIamcalledupontopronounce,theyareaggrievedfromanymisunderstandingofmine,eitherastothelocalityorthepointsofnauticalknowledge,theymustbeartheconsequencesofnothavingavailedthemselvesofthatmodeofproceedingwhichitwasintheirownpowertohaveadopted.’

Themeritsandassessmentoftherewardinmodernsalvageclaimsareseldompursuedincourts.Bothsalvorsandtheownersofsalvedvesselstendrathertooptforarbitrationbeforeanarbitratorperhapsbetterversedinsalvagethanthecourts.Courtapplicationsarehoweveroftenresortedtoinrelationtotheancillaryreliefsoughtinconnectionwithsalvageclaims,suchasinspection,discovery,andparticularlysecurity.

286 §7-2.2.2Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 286 4/20/06 1:00:42 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-2.2.4 Statutory duty to assist persons and ships in distress

Maritimelawhaslongimposedadutyonvesselstoassistothersindistress.LordStowellinThe

Waterloo37confirmed

‘Itisthedutyofallshipstogivesuccourtoothersindistress;nonebutafreebooterwouldwithholdit.’

Statute law distinguishes between the duty to assist applicable to domestic ships from that of

aforeignflaggedvessel.SouthAfricanshipsmustassistbothpersonsandpropertyindistress.

Foreignshipsarerequiredbystatuteonly torenderassistance todistressedpersons.38TheAct

confirmstheobligationofthemasterofaSouthAfricanshiptoassistallvesselsindistress,under

painofmakinganofficiallogentryexplaininghisfailuretodoso:

‘IfthemasterofaSouthAfricanship,onreceivingatseaasignalofdistressorinfor-mationfromanysourcethatashipisindistress,isunable,orinthespecialcircum-stancesofthecaseconsidersitunreasonableorunnecessary,togototheassistanceofthepersonindistress,heorsheshallforthwithcauseastatementtobeenteredintheofficiallogbook,ofhisorherreasonsfornotgoingtotheassistanceofthatperson.’39

Section6extendsthisobligationtothemasterofallships, localorforeign,wherepersonsare

indistressatsea,ands7requiresthemastersofallshipsinvolvedinacollisionatseatorender

assistanceeachtotheother.Theseobligationswillbeconsideredagaininrelationtotherequire-

mentthatsalvagebevoluntarilyrendered,notinpursuanceofanypre-existingduty.40TheAct

ensuresthatthiscommonlawrequirementofsalvageisnottransgressedbyenactingthat

‘Compliancebythemasterofashipwiththeprovisionsofthissectionshallnotaffecthisorherright,ortherightofanyotherperson,tosalvage.’4�

§7-2.2.5 Formalities in relation to salvage

TheActappointsas‘salvageofficers’‘suitablyqualifiedpersonswhohaveprescribeddutiesand

powers’.Perhapsthemosthistoricpoweristhatofs�3:

‘No person shall, when a ship is wrecked, stranded or in distress, plunder, createdisorderorobstructthepreservationoftheshiporshipwreckedpersonsorthewreck,andthesalvageofficerorhisorherauthorisedrepresentativemaycauseanypersoncontraveningtheprovisionsofthissectiontobedetained.’

37 The Waterloo2Dod437quotedinThe Sappho(�87�)�7ER238at240.

38 Thereseemslittlelogictothisdistinction.

39 WreckandSalvageAct,s5(5).

40 §7-4.�.�.

4� WreckandSalvageAct,s5(6).Inrelationtothedutytoassistaftercollision,sees7(2).

§7-2.2.4 287wreck & salvage act

Chapter 7.indd 287 4/20/06 1:00:42 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

The provisions ofArt 5 are also of consequence in assessing the powers of the SouthAfrican

authorities under the Marine Pollution (Control and Civil Liability)Act49 and the Intervention

Convention,50totakenecessarystepstoavertanenvironmentaldisaster,andinthateventtodictate

toboth theownerand the salvorwhat shouldor shouldnotbedonewith the salvedvessel. In

relationtosalvageoperationscontrolledbypublicauthorities,Art5provides:

‘(�) ThisConvention shallnotaffect anyprovisionsofnational laworany inter-national convention relating to salvageoperationsbyorunder the control ofpublicauthorities.

(2) Nevertheless,salvorscarryingoutsuchsalvageoperationsshallbeentitledtoavailthemselvesoftherightsandremediesprovidedforinthisConventioninrespectofsalvageoperations.

(3) Theextenttowhichapublicauthorityunderadutytoperformsalvageopera-tionsmayavailitselfoftherightsandremediesprovidedforinthisConventionshallbedeterminedbythelawoftheStatewheresuchauthorityissituated.’

ThisshouldmeanthatSouthAfricanstatutorypowersofinterventionwouldbeunaffectedbythe

SalvageConvention.


Therighttoclaimsalvageisafundamentalrightofinternationalmaritimelaw,dependingneither

uponanycontractualengagementbetweenthesalvorandtheownerofthesalvedproperty,nor

uponacauseofactionindelict(tort).Itisarightsui generis,thoughitmaydisplaysimilarities

toestablishedcausesofactionsuchasnegotiorum gestioandunjustifiedenrichment.Itdoesnot

requirecompartmentalisation.5�Ithasstooduponitsownfoundationsinmaritimelawfromthe

earliesttimes:

49 Act6of�98�,dealtwithin§��-2.4.

50 EnactedintoSouthAfricanlawintheMarinePollution(Intervention)Act,64of�987.See§��-2.4

5� SeeforexampleThe Calypso(�828)2Hagg209,inwhichSirChristopherRobinsongivesahistoryofthederivationofsalvagelaw,attributingitsoriginstonegotiorum gestioasexpoundedinDig.3.5.ThispedigreeisquestionedbyRoscoeAdmiralty Practice5thEditionat�26. Therelationshipbetweensalvageandnegotiorum gestio isexaminedbyProfessorvanNiekerkinSalvage and Negotiorum Gestio: Exploratory Reflections on the Jurisprudential Foundation and Classification of the South African Law of Salvage (�992)Acta Juridica203.ProfessorvanNiekerkconcludesthatthereisajurisprudentialhomeforsalvageintheRoman-Dutchprincipleofnegotiorum gestio,referring,inter alia,tothewritingsofGrotiusInleidinge3.27.6. ForviewsonsalvageasenrichmentseeRoseRestitution and the Rescuer(�989)OxfordJournalofLegalStudies�73,andcfVisserRethinking Unjustified Enrichment: A Perspective on the Competition between Contractual and Enrichment Remedies (�992)Acta Juridica203.Manyattemptshavebeenmadetocategorisesalvage,inter aliaasnotonlyasnegotiorum gestioandenrichment,butalsoasanimpliedcontract(The Lord Dufferin(�849)7NotofCasSuppxxxiii(BombaySCJ))andcfThe Toyo Maru AppealCourtjudgmentperLordDiplock [�972]AC242at268.

Thesalvageofficerisempoweredtoconductaninvestigationwhenanyshipis‘wrecked,stranded

orindistress,42but,inexercisinghisorherpowers,asalvageofficermaynot‘interferewiththe

lawfulperformanceofasalvageservicebyasalvor.’43

Thesalvageofficerisgiventhepowertodetainashipwhichhasbeensalvaged‘untilpaymentis

madeforthesalvagedue,oruntilprocessforthearrestordetentionofsuchshiporwreckbya

competentcourtisserved.’Thesalvageofficerisrequiredtoreleaseanyshipthusdetainedupon

provisionofsecurity‘tohisorhersatisfaction’.44

§7-2.2.6 No forfeiture of crew salvage rights

TheActretainstheprohibitiononaseamansigningawayhisorherrighttosalvageonallvessels

otherthanthosededicatedtosalvage.45Atcommonlaw,salvageaccruestothemaster,crewand

ownersofasalvagingvessel,withoutanyprioragreementthatthisbethecase.Salvagetugcrews

areusuallyrequired tosign‘salvagearticles’whichvary theircommonlawright toshare ina

salvageawardwiththeirmasterandowners.

§7-2.2.7 The state as salvor or as the owner of salvaged property

TheActbindsthestate,andthereforemakesthesalvageofstateownedvessels,andsalvageby

governmentvesselsofprivateorotherstatevessels,subjecttoitsprovisions.46TheConvention

howeverpreservestherightofastatetoclaimsovereignimmunity:

‘Withoutprejudicetoarticle5,thisConventionshallnotapplytowarshipsorothernon-commercial vessels owned or operated by a State and entitled, at the time ofsalvageoperations, to sovereign immunityundergenerally recognisedprinciplesofinternationallawunlessthatStatedecidesotherwise.’47

SouthAfricanlawrecognisestheprinciplesofsovereignimmunity.48

42 Ibid,s��.

43 Ibid,s�0(3).

44 Ibid,s�7.AlthoughanadmiraltyarrestcanbeissuedbytheHighCourtveryspeedily,therecouldbecircumstancesinwhichavesselislikelytoabscondfollowingasuccessfulsalvageoperationwherethisshort-circuitofthelegalprocesscouldbeinvoked.

45 Ibid,s�9.

46 Ibid,s24.

47 SalvageConventionArt4(�).

48 The Mariannina: Lendalease Finance (Pty) Ltd v Corporacion De Mercadeo Agricola and Others �976(4)SA464(SCA);The Vallabhbhai Patel: The Shipping Corporation Of India Ltd v Evdomon Corporation and Another �994(�)SA550(SCA). The Oscar Jupiter : KJ International And Others v MV Oscar Jupiter (Compania De Navigatie Maritime Romline SA and Others Intervening) �998(2)SA�30(D).

288 §7-2.2.5Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 288 4/20/06 1:00:42 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

The provisions ofArt 5 are also of consequence in assessing the powers of the SouthAfrican

authorities under the Marine Pollution (Control and Civil Liability)Act49 and the Intervention

Convention,50totakenecessarystepstoavertanenvironmentaldisaster,andinthateventtodictate

toboth theownerand the salvorwhat shouldor shouldnotbedonewith the salvedvessel. In

relationtosalvageoperationscontrolledbypublicauthorities,Art5provides:

‘(�) ThisConvention shallnotaffect anyprovisionsofnational laworany inter-national convention relating to salvageoperationsbyorunder the control ofpublicauthorities.

(2) Nevertheless,salvorscarryingoutsuchsalvageoperationsshallbeentitledtoavailthemselvesoftherightsandremediesprovidedforinthisConventioninrespectofsalvageoperations.

(3) Theextenttowhichapublicauthorityunderadutytoperformsalvageopera-tionsmayavailitselfoftherightsandremediesprovidedforinthisConventionshallbedeterminedbythelawoftheStatewheresuchauthorityissituated.’

ThisshouldmeanthatSouthAfricanstatutorypowersofinterventionwouldbeunaffectedbythe

SalvageConvention.


Therighttoclaimsalvageisafundamentalrightofinternationalmaritimelaw,dependingneither

uponanycontractualengagementbetweenthesalvorandtheownerofthesalvedproperty,nor

uponacauseofactionindelict(tort).Itisarightsui generis,thoughitmaydisplaysimilarities

toestablishedcausesofactionsuchasnegotiorum gestioandunjustifiedenrichment.Itdoesnot

requirecompartmentalisation.5�Ithasstooduponitsownfoundationsinmaritimelawfromthe

earliesttimes:

49 Act6of�98�,dealtwithin§��-2.4.

50 EnactedintoSouthAfricanlawintheMarinePollution(Intervention)Act,64of�987.See§��-2.4

5� SeeforexampleThe Calypso(�828)2Hagg209,inwhichSirChristopherRobinsongivesahistoryofthederivationofsalvagelaw,attributingitsoriginstonegotiorum gestioasexpoundedinDig.3.5.ThispedigreeisquestionedbyRoscoeAdmiralty Practice5thEditionat�26. Therelationshipbetweensalvageandnegotiorum gestio isexaminedbyProfessorvanNiekerkinSalvage and Negotiorum Gestio: Exploratory Reflections on the Jurisprudential Foundation and Classification of the South African Law of Salvage (�992)Acta Juridica203.ProfessorvanNiekerkconcludesthatthereisajurisprudentialhomeforsalvageintheRoman-Dutchprincipleofnegotiorum gestio,referring,inter alia,tothewritingsofGrotiusInleidinge3.27.6. ForviewsonsalvageasenrichmentseeRoseRestitution and the Rescuer(�989)OxfordJournalofLegalStudies�73,andcfVisserRethinking Unjustified Enrichment: A Perspective on the Competition between Contractual and Enrichment Remedies (�992)Acta Juridica203.Manyattemptshavebeenmadetocategorisesalvage,inter aliaasnotonlyasnegotiorum gestioandenrichment,butalsoasanimpliedcontract(The Lord Dufferin(�849)7NotofCasSuppxxxiii(BombaySCJ))andcfThe Toyo Maru AppealCourtjudgmentperLordDiplock [�972]AC242at268.

§7-2.2.7 289general principles

Chapter 7.indd 289 4/20/06 1:00:43 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Secondis thegeneralmotivationofpublicpolicyreferredtobyDrLushingtoninThe Fusilier58

thus:

‘Salvageisgovernedbyadueregardtobenefitreceived,combinedwithajustregardforthegeneralinterestsofshipsandmaritimecommerce.Allownersofshipsandcar-goesandallunderwritersareinterestedinthegreatprincipleofadequateremunerationbeingpaidforsalvageservices;andnonearemore interested thantheunderwritersofthecargo’.

IntheUnitedStates,StoryJdeclaredthatsalvageshouldthusbetreatedas‘amixedquestionof

publicpolicyandprivateright’.59

The Salvage Convention and public policy and equity

TheSalvageConventionaccordssomerecognitiontopublicpolicyinitspreamble,whichrecords

thatthestatepartiestotheconventionare

‘conscious of the major contribution which efficient and timely salvage operationscanmaketothesafetyofvesselsandotherpropertyindangerandtotheprotectionoftheenvironment’.

Theconventionthengivespracticaleffecttooverarchingprinciplesofequityandpublicpolicyin

Art7whichallowasalvagecontractoranytermsthereoftobeannulledormodifiedif:

‘(a) the contract has been entered into under undue influence or the influence ofdangeranditstermsareinequitable;or

(b) thepaymentunderthecontractisinanexcessivedegreetoolargeortoosmallfortheservicesactuallyrendered.’

§7-4 Essentialelementsofsalvage:

Aroundthesegeneralprinciples,thefollowingessentialingredientswererequirementsofalltradi-

tionalsalvageoperationsandclaims.Allexcepttherequirementthatpropertysalvedbe‘maritime’,

remain,directlyorindirectly,prerequisitesforsalvageundertheSalvageConvention:

(a) Salvageservicesofaparticularnature;renderedto

(b) Salvedmaritimeproperty–perhapscoupledwithsavedlife;givingriseto

(c) Asalvedfundfromwhichanawardismade;to

(d) Asalvorwhoseconductdoesnotvitiateorreducetheaward.

58 The Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�.

59 QuotedinKennedy, op citat�9.ThesameexpressionwasusedbySirSamuelEvansinThe Leon Blum[�9�5]P90at�02.InThe Albion(�86�)�67ER�2�,DrLushingtonendorsedStoryJ’scomments.

‘TorestthejurisdictionoftheAdmiraltyCourtuponanimpliedrequestbytheownerofthepropertyindangertothesalvors,oronanimpliedcontractbetweenthesalvorsandtheownerswiththerelinquishmentoftheres istoconfusetwodifferentsystemsof law and to resort to a misleading analogy. The true view is … that the law ofAdmiralty imposed upon the owner of the property saved an obligation to pay thepersonwhosavesit,simplybecauseintheviewofthatsystemoflawitisjustthatheshould…’52

Thereisnocauseofactionforsalvageinanon-maritimecontext’.53SaidDrLushingtoninThe

Fusilier,54‘Salvageisnotgovernedbythe‘ordinaryruleswhichprevailinmercantiletransactions

onshore.’

JudgeStoryendorsedsalvageinsomewhatmoreexpansiveterms:

‘[Salvage]offersapremiumbywayofhonoraryreward,forpromptandreadyassist-ance tohumansufferings; foraboldandfearless intrepedity;andfor thataffectingchivalry,whichforgetsitselfinananxietytosaveproperty,aswellaslife.’55

Allmaritimesalvageissubjecttothesamegeneralprinciples:thesalvageofanultralargecrude

carrier,ladenwith300000tonnesofcrudeoilisgovernedbythesameunderlyinglawsasthe

salvageofonelocalfishingsmackbyanother.Thefirstprincipleisthatsalvageis,toagreater

extentthanmostotherlaw,governedbyequity.56Theequityofgivingareasonablerewardfor

spontaneousservicestosavepropertyandlifegaverisetoacauseofactioninRomanLawandis

recognisedintheEnglishcourts.Inequitablerewardsforsalvage,evenifagreedinadvance,fall

tobebroughtintolinebythecourts.57

Therewouldappearnoreason,however,whysalvageshouldnottakeitsrightfuljurisprudentialplaceasarightrecognisedbymaritimelaw,sui generis.

52 The Cargo ex The Port Victor[�90�]P243at249.

53 The Goring [�988]2WLR460(HL),andthecommentaryonthecasebyProfessorJacksonNon-Tidal Salvage[�988]LMCQ449.

54 DrLushingtoninThe Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�at347.

55 The Henry Ewbank(�883)��FedCas��66at��70.

56 Theterm‘equity’inthiscontextdoesnotrelatetothedistinctionbetweencourtsofcommonlawandequityofEngland.Theexpressionisusedinthesenseoffairnessandjustice.Similarly,theuseoftheterm‘commonlaw’describestheSouthAfricanfall-backlegalsystemwhichcomplementsandsupplementsstatutelaw,anddoesnotalludetotheEnglishpracticeofcommonlaw,incontradistinctiontothecivilianlaw.

57 The Medina(�876)�PD.IntheSouthAfricancaseofThe British Empire: Blackburn v Mitchell (�897)�4SC338atugofferedassistancetoavesselwhichhadlostbothanchors,threateningtoleavethevesseltobeachifhispriceof£2000werenotpaid.Thecourtreducedtheawardto£�000.SeealsoThe Guglielmo O: Anderson & Murison v Druscovitch(�888)6SC�34.

290 §7-3Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 290 4/20/06 1:00:43 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Secondis thegeneralmotivationofpublicpolicyreferredtobyDrLushingtoninThe Fusilier58

thus:

‘Salvageisgovernedbyadueregardtobenefitreceived,combinedwithajustregardforthegeneralinterestsofshipsandmaritimecommerce.Allownersofshipsandcar-goesandallunderwritersareinterestedinthegreatprincipleofadequateremunerationbeingpaidforsalvageservices;andnonearemore interested thantheunderwritersofthecargo’.

IntheUnitedStates,StoryJdeclaredthatsalvageshouldthusbetreatedas‘amixedquestionof

publicpolicyandprivateright’.59

The Salvage Convention and public policy and equity

TheSalvageConventionaccordssomerecognitiontopublicpolicyinitspreamble,whichrecords

thatthestatepartiestotheconventionare

‘conscious of the major contribution which efficient and timely salvage operationscanmaketothesafetyofvesselsandotherpropertyindangerandtotheprotectionoftheenvironment’.

Theconventionthengivespracticaleffecttooverarchingprinciplesofequityandpublicpolicyin

Art7whichallowasalvagecontractoranytermsthereoftobeannulledormodifiedif:

‘(a) the contract has been entered into under undue influence or the influence ofdangeranditstermsareinequitable;or

(b) thepaymentunderthecontractisinanexcessivedegreetoolargeortoosmallfortheservicesactuallyrendered.’

§7-4 Essentialelementsofsalvage:

Aroundthesegeneralprinciples,thefollowingessentialingredientswererequirementsofalltradi-

tionalsalvageoperationsandclaims.Allexcepttherequirementthatpropertysalvedbe‘maritime’,

remain,directlyorindirectly,prerequisitesforsalvageundertheSalvageConvention:

(a) Salvageservicesofaparticularnature;renderedto

(b) Salvedmaritimeproperty–perhapscoupledwithsavedlife;givingriseto

(c) Asalvedfundfromwhichanawardismade;to

(d) Asalvorwhoseconductdoesnotvitiateorreducetheaward.

58 The Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�.

59 QuotedinKennedy, op citat�9.ThesameexpressionwasusedbySirSamuelEvansinThe Leon Blum[�9�5]P90at�02.InThe Albion(�86�)�67ER�2�,DrLushingtonendorsedStoryJ’scomments.

§7-4 291general principles

Chapter 7.indd 291 4/20/06 1:00:44 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Voluntary by no prior agreement

In The Neptune, the Admiralty Court referred to ‘disinterested outsiders’ being entitled to

salvage:

‘Theequitablebasisof salvage isnot theremerely to encourage thosewhohaveadutytopreserveorindeedsavemaritimepropertytodotheirjob.Itistoencouragedisinterestedoutsiderswithoutanyparticularrelationtoashipindistress’.62

Butanagreementtosalvageenteredintoafterthedangerarose,isnobartoaclaimforsalvage.63

Suchanagreementmaybeinanylegalform,writtenorverbal.64

Perhapsthemostcommonincidenceofapre-existingdutyisfoundin‘salvage’servicesrendered

during the performance of a towage contract.65 It is necessary for the tug to show that some

servicesbeyond thecontemplationof the towageagreementand in thenatureof salvagewere

rendered.Theonusisfirmlyonthetuganditisnotgenerallyeasyforatugoperatortoconvert

histowingservicestosalvage.66

62 The Neptune(�824)�Hagg227at236,quotedinKennedy, op citat§43�.

63 Clan Steam Trawling Co Ltd v AberdeenSteam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd (�908)SessionCases65�.SeealsoThe Harry Escombe: Maytom v Master of the Harry Escombe�920AD�87inwhichaharbourtugperformedsalvageunderanocure–nopaycontract,andtheclaimofthemasterandcrewfortheirshareoftheawardwasdisallowedbythecourtonappeal.InThe Indian Prince: SAR&H v Wilcock NO�935CPD489at500,thecourtallowedsalvageevenwheretherewassomeremunerationagreedeveniftherebenosuccess.Thecorrectnessofthisdecisionisdoubtful.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

64 Thedifficultywithaverbalcontractisinprovingdisputedterms–includinguponwhosebehalfthecontractwasenteredinto.InThe Berwick Castle: Union Castle Mail Steamship Co v Irvin & Johnson Ltd�92�CPD7�2,therewasdoubtaboutthemasterhavingboundcargotothesalvage.Thecourtindicatedthatsuchanagreementshouldbeclearlypleaded.SeealsoThe Yute: Union Government v The Master of the Spanish Ship Yute�9�7CPD494at502.Forthemaster’sauthoritytobindallintereststosalvageseeSAR&H v Osaka Shoshen Kaisha�938(2)PHF76(C).[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.].InThe Philippine Commander: CE Heath & Co (Marine) Ltd v Crimson Navigation Corp SA �988(�)457(D)thecourtaccepted(at460)thatthedemisecharterer’smasterhadauthoritytoactonbehalfoftheownersinconnectionwiththesalvagealthoughhewasnot,infact,theirservant.

65 StanilandTowage or Salvage: The Manchester[�988]LMCQ�6.TheSouthAfricancourtinThe Manchesterallowedconversionfromtowagetosalvageinthelightofthewordingoftheportauthority’scontractandthethenwordingoftheMerchantShippingAct,�95�entitlingapersonwhorendersassistancetoaship‘indistress’toasalvageaward.TheCourt,simplistically,foundthattheManchesterwas‘indistress’andthathersaviorswerethus‘salvors’,notwithstandingthattheyhadtowageobligationswhichprobablyencompassedtheiractionsinsavingthevessel.SeealsoThe Sellasia: Master, Officers etc of ST JW Sauer v Owners of SS Sellasia�926CPD437at440wherethecourtrecognisedthepossiblityofconversionoftowagetosalvagewheredutieswererequiredofthetowoutsideofitsordinaryemployment.

66 The Maréchal Suchet[�9��]PD�.The�9�0Convention,Art4stated:

‘Atughasnorighttoremunerationforassistancetoorsalvageofthevesselsheistowingorofthevessel’scargo,exceptwhereshehasrenderedexceptionalserviceswhichcannotbeconsideredasrenderedinfulfilmentofthecontractoftowage.’

Unlessallfourarepresent,therecan,atcommonlaw,benosalvage.Buttheconversealsoapplies:

withallfouroftheaboveingredients,therewas,atcommonlaw,salvagewhichshouldattractan

award.Theassessmentoftheawardthenbecameonlyaquestionofdegree.Weshallbelooking

ateachprerequisiteinturn,bearinginmindthedefinitionofsalvagegivenbyKennedy:60

‘aservicewhichconfersabenefitbysavingorhelpingtosavearecognisedsubjectofsalvagewhenindangerfromwhichitcannotbeextricatedunaided,ifandsofarastherenderingofsuchserviceisvoluntaryinthesenseofbeingattributableneithertoapre-existingobligationnorsolelyfortheinterestsofthesalvor.’

§7-4.1 Salvage services of particular nature

Salvageservicesmaybemaritimeornon-maritimeinnature.Itisnotnecessarythattheservices

themselvesbeofamarinenature,orrenderedatsea:itisthenatureofthepropertysalvagedand

itssituationthatgivestheservicestheirmaritimenature.Thussalvorsandtheiroperationsmaybe

shore-based–anditisconceivablethataradioham,perhapssituatedfarinland,maybeableto

rendersalvageassistancebyrelayingdistresscallsandmessagestoandfromavesselindanger.

Anexampleofthisisrecognitionthatthesendingofacablebyalighthousekeepercallingfor

tugswasfoundtogiverisetoaclaimforsalvage.6�

Toconstitutesalvage,thecommonlawrequiredsalvageservicestobevoluntary,renderedincir-

cumstancesofdangertothesalvedproperty(thoughnotnecessarilytothesalvor),andsuccessful

oratleastbeneficialinrelationtotheoutcome.Weshallconsidereachinturn,notingtheextent

ofchangesbroughtaboutbytheSalvageConvention.

§7-4.1.1 Voluntariness

Traditional law on voluntariness

Thesalvageservicemustnotbe

◆ renderedbyreasonofanagreementpre-datingthedanger;

◆ anofficialduty;

◆ renderedpurelyinselfinterest.

Seriatim:

60 Kennedy, op citat��.

6� The Marguerite Molinos�903P�6�.

292 §7-4.1.Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 292 4/20/06 1:00:44 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Voluntary by no prior agreement

In The Neptune, the Admiralty Court referred to ‘disinterested outsiders’ being entitled to

salvage:

‘Theequitablebasisof salvage isnot theremerely to encourage thosewhohaveadutytopreserveorindeedsavemaritimepropertytodotheirjob.Itistoencouragedisinterestedoutsiderswithoutanyparticularrelationtoashipindistress’.62

Butanagreementtosalvageenteredintoafterthedangerarose,isnobartoaclaimforsalvage.63

Suchanagreementmaybeinanylegalform,writtenorverbal.64

Perhapsthemostcommonincidenceofapre-existingdutyisfoundin‘salvage’servicesrendered

during the performance of a towage contract.65 It is necessary for the tug to show that some

servicesbeyond thecontemplationof the towageagreementand in thenatureof salvagewere

rendered.Theonusisfirmlyonthetuganditisnotgenerallyeasyforatugoperatortoconvert

histowingservicestosalvage.66

62 The Neptune(�824)�Hagg227at236,quotedinKennedy, op citat§43�.

63 Clan Steam Trawling Co Ltd v AberdeenSteam Trawling and Fishing Co Ltd (�908)SessionCases65�.SeealsoThe Harry Escombe: Maytom v Master of the Harry Escombe�920AD�87inwhichaharbourtugperformedsalvageunderanocure–nopaycontract,andtheclaimofthemasterandcrewfortheirshareoftheawardwasdisallowedbythecourtonappeal.InThe Indian Prince: SAR&H v Wilcock NO�935CPD489at500,thecourtallowedsalvageevenwheretherewassomeremunerationagreedeveniftherebenosuccess.Thecorrectnessofthisdecisionisdoubtful.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

64 Thedifficultywithaverbalcontractisinprovingdisputedterms–includinguponwhosebehalfthecontractwasenteredinto.InThe Berwick Castle: Union Castle Mail Steamship Co v Irvin & Johnson Ltd�92�CPD7�2,therewasdoubtaboutthemasterhavingboundcargotothesalvage.Thecourtindicatedthatsuchanagreementshouldbeclearlypleaded.SeealsoThe Yute: Union Government v The Master of the Spanish Ship Yute�9�7CPD494at502.Forthemaster’sauthoritytobindallintereststosalvageseeSAR&H v Osaka Shoshen Kaisha�938(2)PHF76(C).[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.].InThe Philippine Commander: CE Heath & Co (Marine) Ltd v Crimson Navigation Corp SA �988(�)457(D)thecourtaccepted(at460)thatthedemisecharterer’smasterhadauthoritytoactonbehalfoftheownersinconnectionwiththesalvagealthoughhewasnot,infact,theirservant.

65 StanilandTowage or Salvage: The Manchester[�988]LMCQ�6.TheSouthAfricancourtinThe Manchesterallowedconversionfromtowagetosalvageinthelightofthewordingoftheportauthority’scontractandthethenwordingoftheMerchantShippingAct,�95�entitlingapersonwhorendersassistancetoaship‘indistress’toasalvageaward.TheCourt,simplistically,foundthattheManchesterwas‘indistress’andthathersaviorswerethus‘salvors’,notwithstandingthattheyhadtowageobligationswhichprobablyencompassedtheiractionsinsavingthevessel.SeealsoThe Sellasia: Master, Officers etc of ST JW Sauer v Owners of SS Sellasia�926CPD437at440wherethecourtrecognisedthepossiblityofconversionoftowagetosalvagewheredutieswererequiredofthetowoutsideofitsordinaryemployment.

66 The Maréchal Suchet[�9��]PD�.The�9�0Convention,Art4stated:

‘Atughasnorighttoremunerationforassistancetoorsalvageofthevesselsheistowingorofthevessel’scargo,exceptwhereshehasrenderedexceptionalserviceswhichcannotbeconsideredasrenderedinfulfilmentofthecontractoftowage.’

§7-4.1.1 293essential elements

Chapter 7.indd 293 4/20/06 1:00:45 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

caseisalsointerestingbecausethesalvageserviceswerestand-byservicesand‘moralsupport’,

withnothingbeingphysicallydonetothesalvedvesselbythesalvors.74

Itappearsthat,followingEnglishlaw,thereisalsonobartotheSouthAfricanNavyclaiming

salvage of civil vessels provided services outside of their normal duties are rendered.75 Navy

vesselsmayalsobesalvaged.

Voluntary by being not purely for self interest or self-preservation

Intraditionallaw,salvagemustthusbe‘voluntary’,or,asKennedydescribesit,‘gratuitous’.76We

shalldiscusslatertheextenttowhichasalvorisentitledbyrighttocommencesalvageuninvited

andtocontinuesalvageunwanted.77

Apassengerwhohelpswithsalvageofthevesselheistravellingonisnotnormallyentitledtosalvage

asheisactinginself-preservation.78Agoodexampleofself-preservationis The Lomonosoff-79in

whichBritishandBelgiansoldiersescapedtheBolsheviksinMurmanskbygettingtheLomonosoff

underway,co-incidentallysavingheraswell.Astheirmotiveswerenotsolelyself-preservation,

theywereallowedsalvage.Itispossiblethatthebaronmasterandcrewclaimingsalvageoftheir

ownvesselcouldderivealsofromthisrule.

The Salvage Convention and voluntariness

TheSalvageConventiondealsonlyminimallywithvoluntariness.Article�7reads:

‘No payment is due under the provisions of this Convention unless the servicesrenderedexceedwhatcanbereasonablyconsideredasdueperformanceofacontractenteredintobeforethedangerarose.’

74 Seealso The Melanie v The San Onofre(�925)AC246(HL).Itshouldbenotedalsothatthesestatutoryduties,inbothEnglandandSouthAfrica,applytohomeflagvessels,whereveroperating,andtoforeignvesselsinhomewaters.ThestatutoryobligationsoftheflagcountrycouldthusbesignificantevenwhereasalvageclaimwasbeingheardintheSouthAfricacourtintermsofEnglishlaw,butsubjecttotheoverridingapplicationoftheWreckandSalvageAct.

75 The Carrie[�9�7]P224.SeealsoThe Louisa(�8�3)�65ER�324,wheresalvagewereawardedtoaRoyalNavalvessel.PerScottJ:

‘Thecaptainofaman-of-warisnotboundtoputhimselforhismenindangertopreserveamerchantshipfromsinking;andIdonotknowthatheisboundtotakeherintow.Hedidso,inthisinstance,foraslongatimeasanyassistanceofthatkindwasrequired;andalthoughtheservicewhichhasbeenperformedisnotofthehighestdegreeofmerit,itisnottobetoolightlyestimated.’

76 Kennedy, op citat§456.

77 Ontheconductofsalvorssee§7-4.4.

78 Kennedy, op citat433.

79 The Lomonosoff[�92�]P97.

Apilotisalsousuallyregardedasbeingunderacontractualobligationtogiveallnecessaryassist-

ancetothevesselheispiloting.Buthetoomayconverthisroutinepilotageintosalvageif

‘ ...oncertainemergenciesoccurringwhichrequireextraordinaryservice, thepilotisboundtostaybytheship(aswiththetughavingthevesselintow)butbecomesentitledtosalvageremunerationandnotmerepilotagefee.67

The possible conflict of interests which an avaricious pilot may feel in holding off bona fide

salvorsinthevainhopeofhimselfsortingouttheproblemandclaimingarewardwasrecognised

inThe Sandefjord68wherethecourtexpressedtheviewthatpilotsshouldbediscouragedfrom

claimingsalvage.

Ships’agentsandthemasterandcrewofvesselsarenotgenerallyentitledtoclaimsalvageby

reasonoftheircontractualrelationshipwiththevesselorherownersthoughthisisoftenconsid-

eredtenuous.69IntheSouthAfricancaseofThe Harry Escombe,70 ships’agentsarereferredtoas

possibleexceptions,andmay,inappropriatecircumstances,beentitledtosalvage.

Lifeboatcrewsaregoverned in theUnitedKingdombyRoyalCharterwhichentitles themto

seek salvage rewards for property only if no other vessel is standing by to assist. The court

discourageslifeboatmentosaveproperty.7�Asimilardiscouragementmaybeexpectedfromthe

SouthAfricancourts.

Voluntary by no pre-existing duty

TheSouthAfricanWreckandSalvageActandmostsimilarstatutesintheworldimposeobliga-

tionsuponpersonstogivehelpatseatothoseinperil.72

In The Tower Bridge,73 a defence that assistance was given in compliance with the English

MerchantShippingAct(SafetyandLoadlines)Act,�932didnotdefeataclaimforsalvage.This

The�989SalvageConventionissilentuponthepoint,andtheconversionoftowage(orindeedanyotherservice)tosalvagewouldhavetobedeterminedaccordingtothecommonlaw,havingregardalsototheConvention.

67 DrLushingtoninThe SaratogaLushAdm3�8affirmedinThe Ailo(�880)7QBD�29(CA).

68 The Sandefjord(�953)2Lloyd’sLR557.SeealsoThe Kenora[�92�]PD90.

69 The San Demetrio(�94�)69Lloyd’sLR5andThe Albionic[�942]PD8�.

70 The Harry Escombe�920AD�87at�94.

7� The Viscount[�966]�Lloyd’sRep328.

72 Supraat§7-2.2.4TheEnglishMaritimeConventionsActof�9��imposedasimilarduty.SeeThe Gusty v The Daniel M [�940]P�59andThe Tower Bridge[�936]P30.

73 The Tower Bridge[�936]P30.

294 §7-4.1.1Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 294 4/20/06 1:00:45 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

caseisalsointerestingbecausethesalvageserviceswerestand-byservicesand‘moralsupport’,

withnothingbeingphysicallydonetothesalvedvesselbythesalvors.74

Itappearsthat,followingEnglishlaw,thereisalsonobartotheSouthAfricanNavyclaiming

salvage of civil vessels provided services outside of their normal duties are rendered.75 Navy

vesselsmayalsobesalvaged.

Voluntary by being not purely for self interest or self-preservation

Intraditionallaw,salvagemustthusbe‘voluntary’,or,asKennedydescribesit,‘gratuitous’.76We

shalldiscusslatertheextenttowhichasalvorisentitledbyrighttocommencesalvageuninvited

andtocontinuesalvageunwanted.77

Apassengerwhohelpswithsalvageofthevesselheistravellingonisnotnormallyentitledtosalvage

asheisactinginself-preservation.78Agoodexampleofself-preservationis The Lomonosoff-79in

whichBritishandBelgiansoldiersescapedtheBolsheviksinMurmanskbygettingtheLomonosoff

underway,co-incidentallysavingheraswell.Astheirmotiveswerenotsolelyself-preservation,

theywereallowedsalvage.Itispossiblethatthebaronmasterandcrewclaimingsalvageoftheir

ownvesselcouldderivealsofromthisrule.

The Salvage Convention and voluntariness

TheSalvageConventiondealsonlyminimallywithvoluntariness.Article�7reads:

‘No payment is due under the provisions of this Convention unless the servicesrenderedexceedwhatcanbereasonablyconsideredasdueperformanceofacontractenteredintobeforethedangerarose.’

74 Seealso The Melanie v The San Onofre(�925)AC246(HL).Itshouldbenotedalsothatthesestatutoryduties,inbothEnglandandSouthAfrica,applytohomeflagvessels,whereveroperating,andtoforeignvesselsinhomewaters.ThestatutoryobligationsoftheflagcountrycouldthusbesignificantevenwhereasalvageclaimwasbeingheardintheSouthAfricacourtintermsofEnglishlaw,butsubjecttotheoverridingapplicationoftheWreckandSalvageAct.

75 The Carrie[�9�7]P224.SeealsoThe Louisa(�8�3)�65ER�324,wheresalvagewereawardedtoaRoyalNavalvessel.PerScottJ:

‘Thecaptainofaman-of-warisnotboundtoputhimselforhismenindangertopreserveamerchantshipfromsinking;andIdonotknowthatheisboundtotakeherintow.Hedidso,inthisinstance,foraslongatimeasanyassistanceofthatkindwasrequired;andalthoughtheservicewhichhasbeenperformedisnotofthehighestdegreeofmerit,itisnottobetoolightlyestimated.’

76 Kennedy, op citat§456.

77 Ontheconductofsalvorssee§7-4.4.

78 Kennedy, op citat433.

79 The Lomonosoff[�92�]P97.


Chapter 7.indd 295 4/20/06 1:00:46 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

outfalsedistresssignalsmaygiverisetoaclaiminthenatureofsalvageforsearchandrescue

expensestherebyincurred.87

ItisagainDrLushingtoninThe Phantom88towhomwelookforanearlyanalysisof‘danger’:

‘...Iamoftheopinionthatitisnotnecessarythereshouldbeabsolutedangerinordertoconstituteasalvageservice;itissufficientifthereisastateofdifficulty,andreason-ableapprehension....Ithinktheremovingofavesselfromapprehendeddanger,andrealdanger,doespartakeofthecharacterofsalvageservice.’

InThe Charlotte,89DrLushington,indealingwiththesalvageoftheCharlotte fromgravecir-

cumstancesintheaptlynamedRoaringWaterBay,saidagain:

‘Allservicesrenderedatseatoavesselindangerordistressaresalvageservices.…Itisnotnecessarythatthedistressshouldbeactualorimmediateorthatthedangerbeimminentorabsolute;itwillbesufficientif,atthetimetheassistanceisrendered,theshiphasencounteredanydamageormisfortunewhichmightpossiblyexposehertodestructioniftheservicewerenotrendered.’

Andifthemasterbefrightenedandincompetent,thisinitselfcanbesufficientdanger,90though

hisapprehensionofdangermustnotbemerelyfanciful,aswasstatedinThe Helmsman.9�

The Salvage Convention and danger

Thepre-requisiteof thesalvedpropertybeingindanger isconfirmedbyArt�ofTheSalvage

Convention:

‘Salvageoperationmeansanyactoractivityundertakentoassistavesseloranyotherpropertyindangerinnavigablewatersorinanyotherwaterswhatsoever.’

In the absence of any definition of ‘danger’, the courts would look to the common law for

guidance.‘Danger’wasatermofartdevelopedbythelawpriortotheConvention.Itsmeaning

shouldremainunalteredbytheSalvageConvention.

87 The Elswick Park[�904]P76.Wherefalsesignalsaresentout,themaster,inEnglishlaw,isliablebothforafineandforthepaymentoftheexpensesofanyonecomingtohisaid.The�949MerchantShippingAct(SafetyConventionsAct)allowedthisclaimtobecollected‘inthesamemannerassalvage’.TherewouldappeartobenosimilarprovisionisSouthAfricanlaw.Itispossiblethat,bytheapplicationofs6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct,the�949EnglishMerchantShippingActmaybefoundtobeapplicableinSouthAfrica.

88 The Phantom(�866)LR�A&E58at60.

89 The Charlotte(�848)3WRob68.

90 The PendragonCastle (�924)5F2nd56.

9� The Muanza: SAR&H v SS Muanza(�923)EDL2�6.[Caveat s6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionAct.]

Whilst broad enough todelimit the conversionof contractual obligations, such as towage and

pilotage,tosalvage,thearticledoesnotdealwiththeactionsofpotentialsalvorswhoareacting

inpursuanceofastatutoryorevencommonlaw80duty,suchasthosewhosavelifeorproperty

inpursuanceoftheirdutythustoact.InArt�0,theSalvageConventionreinforcesthemaster’s

dutytorenderassistance:

‘Everymasterisbound,sofarashecandosowithoutseriousdangertohisvesselandpersonsthereon,torenderassistancetoanypersonindangerofbeinglostatsea.’

Butthereisnosavingofthemaster’srighttoclaimsalvageifheactsinpursuanceofthisduty,

andnotgratuitously.ItisthusreasonabletoconcludethattheSalvageConventionwouldallowthe

non-voluntarysalvorwhoperformsasalvageoperationandcomplieswiththeotherrequirements

oftheConvention,toclaimsalvagenotwithstandingtheexistenceofapre-existingduty.8�

§7-4.1.2 Danger

Traditional salvage law and danger

Without the element of danger, there can be no salvage service.Although it is the maritime

propertywhichmustbe indanger (even if therebenodanger to thesalvors)82dangermaybe

regardedasanessentialelementofasalvageservice.83

Thedangermustbereal84andsensible.Butitneednotbeimmediate.Itmustnot,saidthecourtin

The Helmsman,85bepurelyaquestionoffancy.Theonusofestablishingtheexistenceofdanger

ison the salvors–anonusgreatlyeased if themasterhas sentoutdistress signals.86Sending

80 Upontheuseoftheterm‘commonlaw’seethecommentsin§7-3.

8� ItshouldbenotedthattheWreckandSalvageActins6(2)preservesthemaster’srighttoclaimsalvageforservicesrenderedinpursuanceofthestatutorydutyimposedbys6byprovidingthat‘compliancebythemasterofashipwiththeprovisionsofss(�)shallnotaffecthisorherright,ortherightofanyotherperson,tosalvage.’

82 The Pericles(�863)Br&Lush80.Dangertothesalvorsmayhoweverbetakenintoaccountinassessingsalvage.Thiswasdone,aswastheirhavingemployedaspecialisttug,inThe Lief: Associated Boating v Baardsen(�895)�2SC330.SeealsoThe Itzehoe: Messina Bros, Coles & Searle [Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.].

83 Kennedy, op citinChap4at�29et seq treatsthetwoconceptstogether.

84 Thedangerneednotbeabsolutenorimminent,providedthatitisreal.The Blairhoyle: Randall v Gray(�895)�2SC387.The Papanui: Table Bay Harbour Board v New Zealand Steamship Co(�90�)�8SC34.ThesalvorsneednotnecessarilybeindangerThe Petunia: East London Landing and Shipping Co v Birmingham(�882)2EDC394at399.Wherehoweveravesselwasinimminentdangerofrunningagroundandwasprovidedwithananchorbyasalvor,a�2%awardwasmade.The Marie Jose: Mossel Bay Boating Co v Brink(�90�)�8SC27�at274.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

85 The Helmsman[�950]84Lloyd’sRep207.

86 The Cynthera[�965]2Lloyd’sRep.294.

296 §7-4.1.2Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 296 4/20/06 1:00:46 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

outfalsedistresssignalsmaygiverisetoaclaiminthenatureofsalvageforsearchandrescue

expensestherebyincurred.87

ItisagainDrLushingtoninThe Phantom88towhomwelookforanearlyanalysisof‘danger’:

‘...Iamoftheopinionthatitisnotnecessarythereshouldbeabsolutedangerinordertoconstituteasalvageservice;itissufficientifthereisastateofdifficulty,andreason-ableapprehension....Ithinktheremovingofavesselfromapprehendeddanger,andrealdanger,doespartakeofthecharacterofsalvageservice.’

InThe Charlotte,89DrLushington,indealingwiththesalvageoftheCharlotte fromgravecir-

cumstancesintheaptlynamedRoaringWaterBay,saidagain:

‘Allservicesrenderedatseatoavesselindangerordistressaresalvageservices.…Itisnotnecessarythatthedistressshouldbeactualorimmediateorthatthedangerbeimminentorabsolute;itwillbesufficientif,atthetimetheassistanceisrendered,theshiphasencounteredanydamageormisfortunewhichmightpossiblyexposehertodestructioniftheservicewerenotrendered.’

Andifthemasterbefrightenedandincompetent,thisinitselfcanbesufficientdanger,90though

hisapprehensionofdangermustnotbemerelyfanciful,aswasstatedinThe Helmsman.9�

The Salvage Convention and danger

Thepre-requisiteof thesalvedpropertybeingindanger isconfirmedbyArt�ofTheSalvage

Convention:

‘Salvageoperationmeansanyactoractivityundertakentoassistavesseloranyotherpropertyindangerinnavigablewatersorinanyotherwaterswhatsoever.’

In the absence of any definition of ‘danger’, the courts would look to the common law for

guidance.‘Danger’wasatermofartdevelopedbythelawpriortotheConvention.Itsmeaning

shouldremainunalteredbytheSalvageConvention.

87 The Elswick Park[�904]P76.Wherefalsesignalsaresentout,themaster,inEnglishlaw,isliablebothforafineandforthepaymentoftheexpensesofanyonecomingtohisaid.The�949MerchantShippingAct(SafetyConventionsAct)allowedthisclaimtobecollected‘inthesamemannerassalvage’.TherewouldappeartobenosimilarprovisionisSouthAfricanlaw.Itispossiblethat,bytheapplicationofs6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct,the�949EnglishMerchantShippingActmaybefoundtobeapplicableinSouthAfrica.

88 The Phantom(�866)LR�A&E58at60.

89 The Charlotte(�848)3WRob68.

90 The PendragonCastle (�924)5F2nd56.

9� The Muanza: SAR&H v SS Muanza(�923)EDL2�6.[Caveat s6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionAct.]


Chapter 7.indd 297 4/20/06 1:00:47 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

already rendered.�00As this lien isnotdependentuponpossession, it isunlikely thatacourt

wouldallowthefirstsalvortoretainpossessiontotheexclusionofabona fidesecondsalvor

appointedbythemasterorownersofthesalvedvessel.Butthecourt,ratherlikebeingupper

custodianofminors,regardsitselfastheuppercustodianofvesselsindistress,andmayitself

assessthenecessityandeffectivenessofsecondandsubsequentsalvors,generallyfavouringthe

effortsofthefirstsalvorsintheassessmentofanaward.�0�Thecourtshouldnotquestionthe

master’srighttodismissthefirstsalvorsandcallinothers.Thatrightmustbeabsolute.Only

whereashiphasbeenabandonedinthetruesenseoftheword,sothatsheisares derelicta,

maythesalvorrefusetosubmittotheauthorityofthemaster(andanyotherpersonseekingto

reassertauthority).�02

Asalvorcontractuallyengagedinsalvage‘undermeanssufficientfor thepurpose’maynotbe

displacedfromthatsalvagebyanothersalvor.�03The Unique Mariner No 2 istheleadingcase

onthesubjectofsubsequentsalvorsandinhisjudgmentBrandonJreviewsthepreviousleading

casesuponwhichthecommonlawisfounded.�04Itisinterestingtonotethatinallthesecases

somepropertyatleastwassaved.ButinThe Valsesia,�05 althoughtherewasnoultimatesuccess,

thecourtneverthelessheldthatarewardshouldbemadeas‘damages’.

The Salvage Convention and Success

Article�2oftheSalvageConventionprovidesanunequivocalconfirmationoftherequirement

ofsuccess:

�00 The Maria (�809)�65ER�073.

�0� The American Farmer[�947]80Lloyd’sRep672.

�02 Cossman v West, supra.

�03 The Maria (�809)�65ER�073,inwhichtwofishingsmacksweresalvagingavesselandweredispossessedbyagun-brigoftheRoyalNavy.Onthequestionoftherightsofthefirstsalvors,ScottJsaid:

‘Twohoursafterthis,upcomesthe‘Mariner’gun-brig,dispossessesthefishingsmacks,andnowclaimstobeconsiderednotonlyassalvor,butasprincipalsalvor,bytheCourt.Thequestionofmeritorofdemeritonherpartmustdependuponapreliminaryquestion,whichis,whetherherassistancewaswantedornot;becausethecharacteroftheactmustbedeterminedbythenecessityofthisinterference.Iftherewasnosuchnecessity,itwillbeacaseratherofdemeritthanofmerit;asalvorwhoisinpossessionhasalien,aqualifiedpropertyinthethingsaved-,anditmaybeextremelyinjurious,notonlytohisinterests,buttothoseoftheownersthemselves,thatheshouldbeputoutofpossession,andhisrewarddisputedorinterferedwithbyothers,untilthemattercanbeadjustedinaCourtofJustice.’

�04 IncludingThe Maude (�876)36LT26, The Maasdam(�893)69LT659,The Loch Tulla(�950)84LlLRep62,andThe Hassel[�959]2Lloyd’sRep82.BrandonJ’sconclusionsarereviewedinKennedy, op citat648.

�05 The Valsesia[�927]P��5.

§7-4.1.3 Success

Traditional salvage law and success

InThe India92 DrLushingtonlaidthegroundrulesrequiringsuccessthus:

‘Unlessthesalvorsbytheirservicesconferredactualbenefitonthesalvedpropertytheyarenotentitledtosalvageremuneration’.

Thuswhereavesselisleftbyhersalvorsingreaterdangerthanwhenthesalvageeffortsbegan,

therecanbeno‘salvageservice’.93InThe Melanie v The San Onofre,94LordPhillimorereferred

to‘meritoriouscontributionstowardssuccess’which,thoughinthemselvesareonlypartiallyor

initiallysuccessful,areneverthelesscontributorytoultimatesuccess,andthusgiverisetosalvage.

Theconverse,statedLordPhillimore,wasalsoclear:nomatterhowmeritorious, if thereisno

contributiontowardstheultimatesuccess,thereisnosalvage.

Whatifthesalvorispreventedfromcompletingitssalvagebyfactorsnotofitsownmaking?Itis

generallyacceptedthatinsuchacase,itscontributionshouldberewarded,butitmaybethat,as

aresultofitbeingpreventedfrombeingabletocompleteitssalvage,thereisnoultimatesuccess.

Theanswerappearstobethatthesalvorwillthenobtainareward‘inthenatureofsalvage’,95

possibly even as damages for loss of opportunity to complete the services (although Brandon

J rejected thisbasis for compensation inThe Unique Mariner No 2,96preferring to regard the

compensationasbasedonconsiderationsofpublicpolicy).

Themasterofthesalvedvesselremainstotallyincommandofhisvessel’sfate:ifherefuses

salvage,asalvormaynotforceitsattentionsonthevessel.Ifasalvorimposesitsservicesupon

anunwillingvessel, itwill earnnosalvage for suchefforts.97Andevenwhereone salvor is

alreadyengagedandatwork,themasterofthesalvedvesselretainstherighttocallinfurther

salvorswhoseinterventionthefirstsalvormaynotoppose.98Thefirstsalvor’sonlyrecourseis

toapproachthecourtfortheassessmentofitsrewardforitscontributiontowardstheultimate

success.Thefirstsalvormaynotresistthehandingoverofsalvagetothesecondsalvor,99but

itcouldpresumablytakestepstoprotectitsmaritimelienoverthesalvedpropertyforservices

92 The India(�842)�WmRob406.

93 The Cheerful(�885)��PD3.

94 The Melanie v The San Onofre[�925]AC246(HL).

95 Kennedy, op cit at646.

96 The Unique Mariner No 2[�979]�Lloyd’sRep37.

97 The Fleece(�850)WmRob278.

98 Cossman v West(�887)�3AppCas�60.

99 The Friesland[�904]P345.

298 §7-4.1.3Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 298 4/20/06 1:00:47 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

already rendered.�00As this lien isnotdependentuponpossession, it isunlikely thatacourt

wouldallowthefirstsalvortoretainpossessiontotheexclusionofabona fidesecondsalvor

appointedbythemasterorownersofthesalvedvessel.Butthecourt,ratherlikebeingupper

custodianofminors,regardsitselfastheuppercustodianofvesselsindistress,andmayitself

assessthenecessityandeffectivenessofsecondandsubsequentsalvors,generallyfavouringthe

effortsofthefirstsalvorsintheassessmentofanaward.�0�Thecourtshouldnotquestionthe

master’srighttodismissthefirstsalvorsandcallinothers.Thatrightmustbeabsolute.Only

whereashiphasbeenabandonedinthetruesenseoftheword,sothatsheisares derelicta,

maythesalvorrefusetosubmittotheauthorityofthemaster(andanyotherpersonseekingto

reassertauthority).�02

Asalvorcontractuallyengagedinsalvage‘undermeanssufficientfor thepurpose’maynotbe

displacedfromthatsalvagebyanothersalvor.�03The Unique Mariner No 2 istheleadingcase

onthesubjectofsubsequentsalvorsandinhisjudgmentBrandonJreviewsthepreviousleading

casesuponwhichthecommonlawisfounded.�04Itisinterestingtonotethatinallthesecases

somepropertyatleastwassaved.ButinThe Valsesia,�05 althoughtherewasnoultimatesuccess,

thecourtneverthelessheldthatarewardshouldbemadeas‘damages’.

The Salvage Convention and Success

Article�2oftheSalvageConventionprovidesanunequivocalconfirmationoftherequirement

ofsuccess:

�00 The Maria (�809)�65ER�073.

�0� The American Farmer[�947]80Lloyd’sRep672.

�02 Cossman v West, supra.

�03 The Maria (�809)�65ER�073,inwhichtwofishingsmacksweresalvagingavesselandweredispossessedbyagun-brigoftheRoyalNavy.Onthequestionoftherightsofthefirstsalvors,ScottJsaid:

‘Twohoursafterthis,upcomesthe‘Mariner’gun-brig,dispossessesthefishingsmacks,andnowclaimstobeconsiderednotonlyassalvor,butasprincipalsalvor,bytheCourt.Thequestionofmeritorofdemeritonherpartmustdependuponapreliminaryquestion,whichis,whetherherassistancewaswantedornot;becausethecharacteroftheactmustbedeterminedbythenecessityofthisinterference.Iftherewasnosuchnecessity,itwillbeacaseratherofdemeritthanofmerit;asalvorwhoisinpossessionhasalien,aqualifiedpropertyinthethingsaved-,anditmaybeextremelyinjurious,notonlytohisinterests,buttothoseoftheownersthemselves,thatheshouldbeputoutofpossession,andhisrewarddisputedorinterferedwithbyothers,untilthemattercanbeadjustedinaCourtofJustice.’

�04 IncludingThe Maude (�876)36LT26, The Maasdam(�893)69LT659,The Loch Tulla(�950)84LlLRep62,andThe Hassel[�959]2Lloyd’sRep82.BrandonJ’sconclusionsarereviewedinKennedy, op citat648.

�05 The Valsesia[�927]P��5.


Chapter 7.indd 299 4/20/06 1:00:48 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

AndlesttherebeanydoubtthatThe Fleece�07doctrineagainstfoistingsalvageuponanunwilling

recipientremainscentraltovoluntarysalvageundertheSalvageConvention,Art�9provides:

‘Servicesrenderednotwithstandingtheexpressandreasonableprohibitionoftheownerormasterofthevessel…shallnotgiverisetopaymentunderthisconvention.’

§7-4.2 Salved maritime property

§7-4.2.1 Traditional salvage law and maritime property

Traditionally,salvageservicesmustberenderedtomaritimeproperty,althoughtheconceptisalso

applicabletothesalvageofaircraft.�08Thecommonlyacceptedprinciplewasthatsalvageapplied

onlytoaship�09tohercargo,herapparelandequipmentandtoherfreight.InThe Gasfloat Whitton

No 2,��0theHouseofLordsendorsedthenumerus claususofmaritimeresdefinedbyLordEsher

MR:theresultwasthattheship(ifusedasaship),hercargo,flotsam,laganandjetsam,thewreck

ofeach,andfreight(withtheadditionoflifesalvagebyreasonofstatute)weretheonlyitemsto

whichsalvageservicescouldberenderedpriortotheSalvageConvention.

Thecargoofavesselmaybesalvagedevenwhere there isnosalvageof thevesselherself��

andtheidentityofthecargoownerdoesnotneedtobeknownthoughthecargoshouldthenbe

describedas‘thecargolatelyladen’onboardthevesselconcerned.Wheregoodssuchasbuoys

areundertow,andthesearenot‘ships’,itispossiblethattheycouldbeincludedas‘cargo’.��2

Charterer’s bunkers were traditionally also regarded as maritime property, probably under the

guiseofcargo.InThe Silia,��3SheenJregardedthedefinitionof‘ship’aswideenoughtoinclude

thehull,machineryandeverythingonboardwhichisthepropertyoftheowners.Theapproachto

salvageoffreightiscasuistic,anddependswhetherfreightwouldhavebeenlosthadthesalvage

servicesnotbeenrendered.��4

�07 The Fleece(�850)WmRob278.

�08 DuringtheFalklandswar,aRoyalAirForceVTOLaircraftwasforcedtoland,unexpectedly,onacontainerstowedontheforedeckofashipen routetotheSouthAtlantic.TheownersoftheshipclaimedsalvagefromtheBritishgovernment.Theclaimwas,accordingtopressaccountsatthetime,settledoutofcourt.

�09 Ormoreaccurately,ashipusedorcapableofbeingusedinnavigation,borrowingfromthedefinitionoftheMerchantShippingAct,�95�,bothintheUnitedKingdomandSouthAfrica.

��0 R v Two Casks of Tallow(�837)3HagAdm294;Five Steel Barges(�890)�5PD�42;A Raft of Timber(�844)2W.Rob25�;The Gasfloat Whitton No 2[�895]P308.

�� Kennedy, op citat�70.

��2 The Gasfloat Whitton No 2[�895]P308.

��3 The Silia[�98�]2Lloyd’sRep.534.

��4 The Pantanassa[�970]�Lloyd’sRep�53.

‘Salvageoperationswhichhavehadausefulresultgiverighttoareward.Exceptasotherwiseprovided,nopaymentisdueunderthisConventionifthesalvageoperationshavehadnousefulresult.’

The‘usefulresult’oftheConventionwording,shouldbenodifferentineffectfromthe‘meritori-

ouscontributiontowardssuccess’ofLordPhillimore.�06

TheSalvageConventiondealswiththequestionofsubsequentsalvorsinArt7byimposingcor-

respondingdutiesontheownerofthesalvedvesselandonthesalvor.Thusthesalvorisrequired

byArt�(�):

‘(c) whenevercircumstancesreasonablyrequire,toseekassistancefromothersal-vors;and

(d) to accept the intervention of other salvors when reasonably requested to dosobytheownerormasterofthevesselorotherpropertyindanger;providedhoweverthattheamountofhisrewardshallnotbeprejudicedshoulditbefoundthatsucharequestwasunreasonable.’

TheconcomitantdutyoftheownerisexpressedinArt7(2):

‘Theownerandmasterof thevesselor theownerofotherpropertyindangershalloweadutytothesalvor:

(a) toco-operatefullywithhimduringthecourseofthesalvageoperations;’

Itisunlikely,therefore,thattheConventionwillupsettheestablishedlawofThe Unique Mariner

No 2totheeffectthatanownerhastherighttointerposeasubsequentsalvoronapriorsalvor

wherenocontractbinds the two (providednowhowever, in termsof theConvention, that the

interposingisa‘reasonablerequest’)buttheownerisobligedtoallowareasonableopportunity

(astheConvention’s‘fullco-operation’)forthepriorcontractedsalvortocompletethesalvage

beforeimposingasubsequentsalvoruponittotakeovertheoperation.

Inrelationtomultiplesalvors,theSalvageConventionimposesadutyuponstatepartiestothe

Conventionbyrequiringthat:

‘A state party shall, whenever regulating or deciding upon matters relating to sal-vageoperationssuchasadmittancetoportsofvesselsindistressortheprovisionoffacilitiestosalvors,takeintoaccounttheneedforco-operationbetweensalvors,otherinterestedpartiesandpublicauthoritiesinordertoensuretheefficientandsuccessfulperformanceofsalvageoperationsforthepurposeofsavinglifeorpropertyindangeraswellaspreventingdamagetotheenvironmentingeneral.’

�06 The Melanie v The San Onofre[�925]AC246(HL).

300 §7-4.1.3Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 300 4/20/06 1:00:48 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

AndlesttherebeanydoubtthatThe Fleece�07doctrineagainstfoistingsalvageuponanunwilling

recipientremainscentraltovoluntarysalvageundertheSalvageConvention,Art�9provides:

‘Servicesrenderednotwithstandingtheexpressandreasonableprohibitionoftheownerormasterofthevessel…shallnotgiverisetopaymentunderthisconvention.’

§7-4.2 Salved maritime property

§7-4.2.1 Traditional salvage law and maritime property

Traditionally,salvageservicesmustberenderedtomaritimeproperty,althoughtheconceptisalso

applicabletothesalvageofaircraft.�08Thecommonlyacceptedprinciplewasthatsalvageapplied

onlytoaship�09tohercargo,herapparelandequipmentandtoherfreight.InThe Gasfloat Whitton

No 2,��0theHouseofLordsendorsedthenumerus claususofmaritimeresdefinedbyLordEsher

MR:theresultwasthattheship(ifusedasaship),hercargo,flotsam,laganandjetsam,thewreck

ofeach,andfreight(withtheadditionoflifesalvagebyreasonofstatute)weretheonlyitemsto

whichsalvageservicescouldberenderedpriortotheSalvageConvention.

Thecargoofavesselmaybesalvagedevenwhere there isnosalvageof thevesselherself��

andtheidentityofthecargoownerdoesnotneedtobeknownthoughthecargoshouldthenbe

describedas‘thecargolatelyladen’onboardthevesselconcerned.Wheregoodssuchasbuoys

areundertow,andthesearenot‘ships’,itispossiblethattheycouldbeincludedas‘cargo’.��2

Charterer’s bunkers were traditionally also regarded as maritime property, probably under the

guiseofcargo.InThe Silia,��3SheenJregardedthedefinitionof‘ship’aswideenoughtoinclude

thehull,machineryandeverythingonboardwhichisthepropertyoftheowners.Theapproachto

salvageoffreightiscasuistic,anddependswhetherfreightwouldhavebeenlosthadthesalvage

servicesnotbeenrendered.��4

�07 The Fleece(�850)WmRob278.

�08 DuringtheFalklandswar,aRoyalAirForceVTOLaircraftwasforcedtoland,unexpectedly,onacontainerstowedontheforedeckofashipen routetotheSouthAtlantic.TheownersoftheshipclaimedsalvagefromtheBritishgovernment.Theclaimwas,accordingtopressaccountsatthetime,settledoutofcourt.

�09 Ormoreaccurately,ashipusedorcapableofbeingusedinnavigation,borrowingfromthedefinitionoftheMerchantShippingAct,�95�,bothintheUnitedKingdomandSouthAfrica.

��0 R v Two Casks of Tallow(�837)3HagAdm294;Five Steel Barges(�890)�5PD�42;A Raft of Timber(�844)2W.Rob25�;The Gasfloat Whitton No 2[�895]P308.

�� Kennedy, op citat�70.

��2 The Gasfloat Whitton No 2[�895]P308.

��3 The Silia[�98�]2Lloyd’sRep.534.

��4 The Pantanassa[�970]�Lloyd’sRep�53.


Chapter 7.indd 301 4/20/06 1:00:49 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-4.3 Salved fund

§7-4.3.1 Traditional salvage law and the reward

Oneofthekeyprinciplesofsalvageisthatthesalvorisentitledtoanequitablerewardforsaving

property evenwhere there is noprioror subsequent agreementbetween theparties either that

thereshouldbeareward,or,whereanrewardiscontemplated,thereisalackofagreementasto

quantum.Theassessmentoftheawardisdoneretrospectivelybytheapplicationofsalvageprinci-

ples.Inpracticemostawardsaresettledbytheparties,orreferredtothedecisionofanarbitrator.

Theprinciplesarethesamehowever.Theassessmentoftheaward,aswiththeconceptofsalvage

itself,restsonpublicpolicy.Allsalvorsshouldbeadequatelyrewardedtoencouragesalvageof

lifeandproperty,andprofessionalsalvors,whomaintaincapitalintensiveassetspurelyoratleast

primarilyforthepurposeofsalvage,shouldespeciallybeencouragedbyaparticularliberality.In

thewordsofDrLushingtoninThe Albion:

‘It is of the utmost importance to the safety of shipping, that the owners ofsteam-tugs andother salvors shouldknow that thisCourt is inclined to rewardliberallyunusual efforts to assistvessels indistress,wherever thoseefforts aresuccessful.��6

That liberalitymaybetemperedwherethetugowneruseshisvesselsalsofor lucrativetowage

–thoughtodayfewsalvorswouldsurvivefromthesalvagemarketalone.

Thefirstruleisthattheupperlimitoftheawardisthesalvedvalueofthepropertysalvaged.Thusit

isthatthefirstandoftenthemostdifficultnegotiationstowardanawardconcernthesalvedvalueof

thevariousinterestssalvaged–ship,cargoandfreight.��7Eachshouldcontributeaccordingtoitsown

value.

Theoperativevalueisthemarketvalueoftheproperty��8asagoingconcern.��9Theinsuredvalue

isonlyafactor,butisnotconclusiveinanyway.Andasitisthesalvedfundwhichstandsbehind

theaward,damageoccurringduringtheaccidentgivingrisetothesalvageorduringthesalvage

itselfmustbedeductedfromtheotherwisesoundvalue.Itisan‘asis-whereis’enquiryconducted

whenthesalvedpropertyisdeliveredtosafety.Conversely,eventsaftercompletionofthesalvage

��6 The Albion(�86�) �67ER�2�at�23.

��7 InThe Matthew Sheeman States Marine Corporation v SAR&H �949(�)SA693(C)thecourtdealtwithanddismissedasalvageclaimbroughtagainstcharterers.Foraclaimtoariseagainstcharterers,acontractualnexusisrequiredbetweenthemandthesalvors.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

��8 The San Onofre[�9�7]P96.

��9 The Edison[�932]P52.

Thetraditionallawlimitingsalvagetomaritimeproperty,andthenconstruingthetermnarrowly,

resultedinpossibleanomaliesarising,particularlyinregardtothecarriageonboardofmanyhigh

valueitemsnotthepropertyoftheownersandnotcargo–includingcharterer’sbunkers,andhigh

valuenavigationalequipmentleasedinbytheowners.Italsoraisedquestionsrelatingto‘non-

tidalsalvage’,ofpropertysituatednotatoronthesea.Thusforexample,theHouseofLordsin

EnglanddeliveredanopinionthatinEnglishlaw,nosalvageclaimlayinrespectofavesselin

non-tidalwaters,includinglakesandriversabovethereachofthetide.��5

§7-4.2.2 The Salvage Convention and maritime property

Notunexpectedlytherefore,Article�oftheSalvageConventionexpandsconsiderablythetradi-

tionaldefinitionofpropertywhichissusceptibletosalvage:

‘(a) Salvage operation means any act or activity undertaken to assist a vesselor any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waterswhatsoever....

(c) Propertymeansanypropertynotpermanentlyand internationallyattached totheshorelineandincludesfreightatrisk..’

TheonlylimitationonpropertyimposedbytheConventionistoexcludefromitsambitproperty

which is ‘permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline’. This would include port

installations,andarguablyevenSingleBuoyMooringswhichhavepermanentpipelinesrunning

totheshore.

Article3dealsspecificallywithoilrigsanddrillingunits:

‘ThisConventionshallnotapplytofixedorfloatingplatformsortomobileoffshoredrillingunitswhensuchplatformsorunitsareonlocationengagedintheexploration,exploitationorproductionofsea-bedmineralresources.’

Butthisexclusionisnegatedbys2(6)oftheWreckandSalvageAct:

‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in article 3 or any other article of theConvention, a subject of salvage shall include any fixed or floating platform or anymobileoffshoredrillingunitwhetherornotitisengagedintheexploration,exploitationorproductionofsea-bedmineralresources.’

Theeffectofs2(6)istomaketheSalvageConventionapplicabletooilrigsofalltypessothat,

underSouthAfricanlaw,assistancerenderedtoanoilrigmaybedealtwithasasalvageclaim

undertheActandtheConvention.

��5 The Goring [�988]2WLR460(HL)andthecommentaryonthecasebyProfessorJacksonin[�988]LMCLQ448.

302 §7-4.2.2Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 302 4/20/06 1:00:49 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-4.3 Salved fund

§7-4.3.1 Traditional salvage law and the reward

Oneofthekeyprinciplesofsalvageisthatthesalvorisentitledtoanequitablerewardforsaving

property evenwhere there is noprioror subsequent agreementbetween theparties either that

thereshouldbeareward,or,whereanrewardiscontemplated,thereisalackofagreementasto

quantum.Theassessmentoftheawardisdoneretrospectivelybytheapplicationofsalvageprinci-

ples.Inpracticemostawardsaresettledbytheparties,orreferredtothedecisionofanarbitrator.

Theprinciplesarethesamehowever.Theassessmentoftheaward,aswiththeconceptofsalvage

itself,restsonpublicpolicy.Allsalvorsshouldbeadequatelyrewardedtoencouragesalvageof

lifeandproperty,andprofessionalsalvors,whomaintaincapitalintensiveassetspurelyoratleast

primarilyforthepurposeofsalvage,shouldespeciallybeencouragedbyaparticularliberality.In

thewordsofDrLushingtoninThe Albion:

‘It is of the utmost importance to the safety of shipping, that the owners ofsteam-tugs andother salvors shouldknow that thisCourt is inclined to rewardliberallyunusual efforts to assistvessels indistress,wherever thoseefforts aresuccessful.��6

That liberalitymaybetemperedwherethetugowneruseshisvesselsalsofor lucrativetowage

–thoughtodayfewsalvorswouldsurvivefromthesalvagemarketalone.

Thefirstruleisthattheupperlimitoftheawardisthesalvedvalueofthepropertysalvaged.Thusit

isthatthefirstandoftenthemostdifficultnegotiationstowardanawardconcernthesalvedvalueof

thevariousinterestssalvaged–ship,cargoandfreight.��7Eachshouldcontributeaccordingtoitsown

value.

Theoperativevalueisthemarketvalueoftheproperty��8asagoingconcern.��9Theinsuredvalue

isonlyafactor,butisnotconclusiveinanyway.Andasitisthesalvedfundwhichstandsbehind

theaward,damageoccurringduringtheaccidentgivingrisetothesalvageorduringthesalvage

itselfmustbedeductedfromtheotherwisesoundvalue.Itisan‘asis-whereis’enquiryconducted

whenthesalvedpropertyisdeliveredtosafety.Conversely,eventsaftercompletionofthesalvage

��6 The Albion(�86�) �67ER�2�at�23.

��7 InThe Matthew Sheeman States Marine Corporation v SAR&H �949(�)SA693(C)thecourtdealtwithanddismissedasalvageclaimbroughtagainstcharterers.Foraclaimtoariseagainstcharterers,acontractualnexusisrequiredbetweenthemandthesalvors.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

��8 The San Onofre[�9�7]P96.

��9 The Edison[�932]P52.


Chapter 7.indd 303 4/20/06 1:00:50 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Thecostsofthesalvagetothesalvor–bothdirectandindirect,andincludingfuel,

insurance,deviation,lossofotheropportunities,anddamagetoshiporgear.

Thesalvor’sclassificationasaprofessionaloramateursalvor;itsskill�27andits

conduct.

AlloftheabovemakeupwhatDrLushingtonreferredtoas‘themanyanddiverseingredientsof

asalvageservice’.�28Andthislistisbynomeansexhaustive.

§7-4.3.2 The Salvage Convention and the award

TheSalvageConventionconfirmsthesalvedfundastheupperlimitofthesalvageaward:�29

‘Therewards,exclusiveofanyinterestandrecoverablelegalcoststhatmaybepay-ablethereon,shallnotexceedthesalvedvaluesofthevesselandotherproperty’,

andconfirmsthattheawardshallbepaidbythevesselandotherpropertyinterestsinproportion

totheirrespectivesalvedvalues.�30

Article�3setsoutalistofcriteriaforfixingtheaward,most,ifnotallofwhicharearestatement

ofthetraditionallaw:

‘(a) thesalvedvalueofthevesselandotherproperty;

(b) theskillandeffortsof thesalvors inpreventingorminimisingdamage to theenvironment;

(c) themeasureofsuccessobtainedbythesalvor;

(d) thenatureanddegreeofthedanger;

(e) the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other property andlife;

(f) thetimeusedandexpensesandlossesincurredbythesalvors;

(g) theriskofliabilityandotherrisksrunbythesalvorsortheirequipment;

(h) thepromptnessoftheservicesrendered;

(i) the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvageoperations;and

(j) the stateof readiness and efficiencyof the salvor’s equipment and thevaluethereof.’

�27 The Rhys[�965]�Lloyd’sRep29.

�28 The Charlotte(�848)3WRob68at7�.

�29 Article�3(3),thoughthespecialcompensationofArt�4maybepaidinexcessoforevenintheabsenceofasalvedfund.

�30 Article�3(2).

◆

◆

areofnoconsequence,especiallychangesinthemarketordeteriorationoftheproperty.Thisis

particularlyimportantwhenperishablecargoissalvaged,andcanspoilifthereisanydelay.�20

Therearetimesalsowhencargohasgainednorealbenefitfromthesalvage–suchaswherecargo

was wet and worthless before salvage and remained so thereafter.�2�And there are also times

wherethecargobenefitsconsiderablymorethantheship.ThusinThe Velox,�22wheretheship

hadrunshortofcoalforherboilersbutwasnotinanysignificantdanger,buthercargooffresh

herringswouldhavedeterioratedbutforthereplenishmentoffuel,thegreaterawardwasmade

againstthecargointerests.Itcanalsobethattheshipderivesnobenefitatall,thoughcargoor

freightarepreserved.Inmoderntimes,thecargomayoftenbeworthfarmorethantheship,and

theawardthenreflectsthisdisparityofvalues.

Oncethesalvedvalueofallsalvedpropertyisagreedoradjudged,thearbitratororthecourtis

requiredtoassesstheamountoftheawardandthefollowingfactorshavebeenfoundsignificant

intraditionalsalvagelaw:

Thedangertothesalvedpropertyandtohumanlife.�23

Thedangertothesalvingproperty,whilstnotanessentialprerequisiteofsalvage,isa

factoraffectingtheaward,asisitsvalue.�24

Theriskstothirdparties,especiallyenvironmentalrisks.�25

Thenatureofthesalvageoperationanditsduration.�26

Responsibilitiesincurredbythesalvorsinperformingthesalvage–forexample

potentialliabilitiesofsalvors.

�20 The James Armstrong(�875)LR4A&EandThe Velox[�906]P263.

�2� The Tabert[�92�]P372.

�22 The Velox[�906]P263.

�23 The Bluebird[�97�]�Lloyd’sRep229wherethecourtruledthatthespecialcircumstancesofthesalvageindicatedanawardinexcessofthe‘usual’upperlimitof50%ofsalvedvalue;andThe Elkhound(�93�)39LlRep�5;seealsoThe Geertjie K[�97�]Lloyd’sRep.285.

�24 The Glengyle[�898]AC5�9;The Evian[�966]2Lloyd’sRep4�.

�25 Theserisksandtheextenttowhichsalvorsshouldbecompensatedfortheirreduction,willbeconsideredin§7-6.Sufficetosaythatithaslongbeenestablishedthattheyareafactorwhichenhancesasalvor’saward.Kennedyregardsthesethirdpartyinterestsas‘collateral’tothedangerstothesalvedvesselherselfratherthanfoundingaseparatesalvageclaimintheirownright–referredtoas‘liabilitysalvage’.Bricedisagrees.Theenhancementofasalvageawardbecausethirdpartyliabilitiesaresavedshouldnotbeconfusedwiththe‘SafetyNet’provisionsoftheLOF�980andtheArt�4SpecialCompensationoftheSalvageConvention,whichrelateonlytothesituationwherethereisno(orinsufficient)salvedfund,buttheenvironmenthasbeensavedfromdisaster.See§7-6.

�26 The Bluebird, supra.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

304 §7-4.3.1Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 304 4/20/06 1:00:50 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Thecostsofthesalvagetothesalvor–bothdirectandindirect,andincludingfuel,

insurance,deviation,lossofotheropportunities,anddamagetoshiporgear.

Thesalvor’sclassificationasaprofessionaloramateursalvor;itsskill�27andits

conduct.

AlloftheabovemakeupwhatDrLushingtonreferredtoas‘themanyanddiverseingredientsof

asalvageservice’.�28Andthislistisbynomeansexhaustive.

§7-4.3.2 The Salvage Convention and the award

TheSalvageConventionconfirmsthesalvedfundastheupperlimitofthesalvageaward:�29

‘Therewards,exclusiveofanyinterestandrecoverablelegalcoststhatmaybepay-ablethereon,shallnotexceedthesalvedvaluesofthevesselandotherproperty’,

andconfirmsthattheawardshallbepaidbythevesselandotherpropertyinterestsinproportion

totheirrespectivesalvedvalues.�30

Article�3setsoutalistofcriteriaforfixingtheaward,most,ifnotallofwhicharearestatement

ofthetraditionallaw:

‘(a) thesalvedvalueofthevesselandotherproperty;

(b) theskillandeffortsof thesalvors inpreventingorminimisingdamage to theenvironment;

(c) themeasureofsuccessobtainedbythesalvor;

(d) thenatureanddegreeofthedanger;

(e) the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other property andlife;

(f) thetimeusedandexpensesandlossesincurredbythesalvors;

(g) theriskofliabilityandotherrisksrunbythesalvorsortheirequipment;

(h) thepromptnessoftheservicesrendered;

(i) the availability and use of vessels or other equipment intended for salvageoperations;and

(j) the stateof readiness and efficiencyof the salvor’s equipment and thevaluethereof.’

�27 The Rhys[�965]�Lloyd’sRep29.

�28 The Charlotte(�848)3WRob68at7�.

�29 Article�3(3),thoughthespecialcompensationofArt�4maybepaidinexcessoforevenintheabsenceofasalvedfund.

�30 Article�3(2).

◆

◆


Chapter 7.indd 305 4/20/06 1:00:50 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

‘IfandwhentheLondonSalvageConvention�989hastheforceoflaw,thenitwouldappeartobecontrarytotheprincipleofuniformityofsalvagelawtointroduceintotheassessmentofsalvagerewardscriterianotcontainedinArt�3.’�35

Buttorestrictthemanyinfluenceswhichhavetraditionallybeentakenintoaccountinassessing

salvage ispossiblyeven to‘dealwithsalvors inaniggardlyway’whichwould‘doshipping

agreatharm’.�36NeitherdoesitdojusticetothepreambletotheSalvageConventionwhich

recordedthatthestatepartieswere‘convincedoftheneedtoensurethatadequateincentivesare

availabletopersonswhoundertakesalvageoperationsinrespectofvesselsandotherproperty

indanger.’

Article�3,likethegeographiclimitationandtheconfusionoverthedeterminationofa‘fairrate’

inconnectionwiththespecialcompensationprovisions,isperhapsanotherareawheretheSalvage

Conventioncouldbeimprovedinthefuture.

§7-4.4 Salvor’s misconduct�37

§7-4.4.1 Traditional salvage law and salvor’s misconduct

Theconductofthesalvorwarrantsspecialcomment.Wehaveseenthatwhereasalvorfoistsits

servicesonanunwillingvictim,itmayloseitsawardaltogether.�38Evenwhereproperlyengaged

however,thesalvorcanjeopardiseallorpartofitsawardbyanythingfromwilfulmisconductto

negligence.

Asalvorowesadutyofcaretotheownerofthepropertyitissalvaging.‘Oncethereisshownto

subsistarelationshipofsalvagebetweensalvorandrecipientthereiscontemporaneouslycreated

anobligationofcareandskillonthepartofthesalvor.’�39Themisconductofsalvorsmaybeused

todefeatasalvageclaim,oratleasttodiminishitsquantum.Inthisrespectthesalvor’snegligence

orothermisconductisa‘shield’againstthesalvageclaim.Asalvor’smisconductmayhowever

‘Itisnotforthiscourttoarrogatetoitselfthepositionofaninternationallawmakingbodyandreadadditionalfactorsforconsiderationintoatreaty.Thusthiscourtdeclinestoconsiderthepreventionofliabilitytothirdparties,publicinterest,or“benefitstotheshipowner”asdistinctfactorsinarrivingatasalvageawardunderthetreaty.’[QuotedbyBrice, op cit§2-��5].

�35 Brice, op citat§2-��6.

�36 AswascautionedagainstinThe Kratos: SAR&H v Master of the SS Kratos�92�Juta’sDailyReporter645.

�37 Seegenerally,RudolphSalvor’s Negligence[�976]JML&C;andThomasThe Negligence of Salvors[�977]LMCQ�67–�73.

�38 §4-4.�.3dealingwithArt�9oftheSalvageConvention.

�39 Aboutthisduty,therecanatcommonlawbenoequivocation.SeeRhidianThomas Salvorial Negligence and its Consequences[�977]LMCLQ�67-�73.SeealsoRudolphNegligent Salvage: Reduction of Award, Forfeiture of Award or Damages?JMLCVol7No24�9-43�.

AlthoughatfirstblushArt�3wouldseemtopointtothislistbeinganumerus claususofwhat

thecourtorarbitratorshouldconsiderinfixingtheaward,thedooriskeptopentoapplyother

criteriabythewordingofArt�3(�):

‘The rewardshallbe fixedwithaview toencouragingsalvageoperations, takinginto account the following criteria without regard to the order in which they arepresentedbelow.’

Providedthecourtorarbitratorhas‘takenintoaccount’thelistedcriteria,itmaynevertheless

applyothercriteria(anddrawguidancefromthetraditional lawofsalvageinsodoing)‘with

aviewtoencouragingsalvageoperations’.TheArt�3awardneedssurelytobepainted‘with

afairlybroadbrush’.�3�ItisinconceivablethatthedraftsmenoftheConvention(andsimilarly

the draftsmen of the Wreck and SalvageAct) could have intended in so subtle a manner to

havefetteredthecommonlawliberalityofthecourtsasexpressedbyBrettMRinThe City of

Chester:�32

‘There is no jurisdiction known [being the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court insalvagematters]whichissomuchatlargeasthejurisdictiongiventoawardsalvage.There is no jurisdiction known in which so many circumstances, including manybeyondthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,aretobeconsideredforthepurposeofdecidingtheamountofsalvageaward.’

Tohavedeprived the courts of so ‘large a jurisdiction’ and thereby change the common law so

profoundlywouldhaverequiredexpressterms.�33Article�3shouldthenhavereadnotonlythatthe

courtorarbitrator‘shallapply’thelistedcriteria,butalso,andclearlyso,thatthecourtorarbitrator

shouldonlyapplythecriterialisted.

TheviewexpressedabovethatArt�3isnotanexclusivelistofcriteria,isnotuniversallyaccepted.

Indeed it is proffered with some diffidence in the light of contrary views taken in the United

StatesinrelationtoArt8oftheBrusselsConvention(whichalsosoughttolistcriteria)inWestar

Marine Services v Heerema Marine Contractors,�34andmoreespeciallybecausetheWestarview

issupportedbyBricewhosuggeststhat:

�3� ThiswastheexpressionofLordMustillQCindeliveringtheopinionoftheHouseofLordsinThe Nagasaki Spirit [�997]�Lloyd’sRep323(HL).LordMustillwascontrastingtheassessmentofanArt�3rewardfromoneintermsofArt�4,buthedidnotpronouncefurtheronthemethodofassessmentofArt�3salvage.

�32 The City of Chester (�884)9PD�82at�87.

�33 ThatthecommonlawconsideredDrLushington’s‘manyanddiverseingredients’ofasalvageawardinSouthAfricaalso,isevidencedbyThe Muanza: SAR&H v SS Muanza�923EDL2�6.

�34 SeeWestar Marine Services v Heerema Marine Contractors62�FSupp��35discussedinBrice, op cit§2-��3inwhichtheUnitedStatesDistrictcourtstateditsdisapprovalforinterpolatingwordsintoconventionsthus:

306 §7-4.4Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 306 4/20/06 1:00:51 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

‘IfandwhentheLondonSalvageConvention�989hastheforceoflaw,thenitwouldappeartobecontrarytotheprincipleofuniformityofsalvagelawtointroduceintotheassessmentofsalvagerewardscriterianotcontainedinArt�3.’�35

Buttorestrictthemanyinfluenceswhichhavetraditionallybeentakenintoaccountinassessing

salvage ispossiblyeven to‘dealwithsalvors inaniggardlyway’whichwould‘doshipping

agreatharm’.�36NeitherdoesitdojusticetothepreambletotheSalvageConventionwhich

recordedthatthestatepartieswere‘convincedoftheneedtoensurethatadequateincentivesare

availabletopersonswhoundertakesalvageoperationsinrespectofvesselsandotherproperty

indanger.’

Article�3,likethegeographiclimitationandtheconfusionoverthedeterminationofa‘fairrate’

inconnectionwiththespecialcompensationprovisions,isperhapsanotherareawheretheSalvage

Conventioncouldbeimprovedinthefuture.

§7-4.4 Salvor’s misconduct�37

§7-4.4.1 Traditional salvage law and salvor’s misconduct

Theconductofthesalvorwarrantsspecialcomment.Wehaveseenthatwhereasalvorfoistsits

servicesonanunwillingvictim,itmayloseitsawardaltogether.�38Evenwhereproperlyengaged

however,thesalvorcanjeopardiseallorpartofitsawardbyanythingfromwilfulmisconductto

negligence.

Asalvorowesadutyofcaretotheownerofthepropertyitissalvaging.‘Oncethereisshownto

subsistarelationshipofsalvagebetweensalvorandrecipientthereiscontemporaneouslycreated

anobligationofcareandskillonthepartofthesalvor.’�39Themisconductofsalvorsmaybeused

todefeatasalvageclaim,oratleasttodiminishitsquantum.Inthisrespectthesalvor’snegligence

orothermisconductisa‘shield’againstthesalvageclaim.Asalvor’smisconductmayhowever

‘Itisnotforthiscourttoarrogatetoitselfthepositionofaninternationallawmakingbodyandreadadditionalfactorsforconsiderationintoatreaty.Thusthiscourtdeclinestoconsiderthepreventionofliabilitytothirdparties,publicinterest,or“benefitstotheshipowner”asdistinctfactorsinarrivingatasalvageawardunderthetreaty.’[QuotedbyBrice, op cit§2-��5].

�35 Brice, op citat§2-��6.

�36 AswascautionedagainstinThe Kratos: SAR&H v Master of the SS Kratos�92�Juta’sDailyReporter645.

�37 Seegenerally,RudolphSalvor’s Negligence[�976]JML&C;andThomasThe Negligence of Salvors[�977]LMCQ�67–�73.

�38 §4-4.�.3dealingwithArt�9oftheSalvageConvention.

�39 Aboutthisduty,therecanatcommonlawbenoequivocation.SeeRhidianThomas Salvorial Negligence and its Consequences[�977]LMCLQ�67-�73.SeealsoRudolphNegligent Salvage: Reduction of Award, Forfeiture of Award or Damages?JMLCVol7No24�9-43�.


Chapter 7.indd 307 4/20/06 1:00:51 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-4.4.2 The Salvage Convention and salvor’s misconduct

Article�8oftheSalvageConventiondealswithmisconduct:

‘Asalvormaybedeprivedofthewholeorpartofthepaymentdueunderthisconven-tiontotheextentthatthesalvageoperationshavebecomenecessaryormoredifficultbecauseoffaultorneglectonhispartorifthesalvorhasbeenguiltoffraudorotherdishonestconduct.’

Insimpleterms,ifonevesselcausesapredicamentinwhichanothervesselrequiressalvage,the

errantvesselmaybedeprivedofsalvage,ormaybeentitledtoalesserawardforsalvage.The

Articledelimits thecommon lawby requiring that the faultorneglectof thesalvor shouldbe

suchastohaveoccasionedthesalvageinthefirstplace,ortohavemadesalvagemoredifficult.

Wherethenegligenceofthesalvordoesneither,butperhapsonlycausesotherlossestothesalved

vessel’sowners(suchasbyexcessivedelaycausedbythefaultofthesalvor)itisdoubtfulthat

theshipownerwouldbeabletoinvokeArt�8toreducetheaward.Theshipowner’srightswould

belimitedtoacounterclaimfordamagescausedtoitbythesalvor’sfault.

Theconductofthesalvorshouldstillbetestedagainstordinarycommonlawprinciplesoffault

andnegligence,butinsodoing,acourtshouldalsonowtakeintoaccountthespecificconvention

dutiesofthesalvor,assetoutinArt8.Article8(�)confirmsthatthesalvorshalloweadutyof

caretotheownerofthevesseloranyotherpropertyindanger.Thesalvoristhenobligedtocarry

outthesalvageoperationswithduecare,seekingassistancefromandacceptinginterventionof

othersalvors.

Whereasalvorhasbeennegligentandhas‘therebyfailedtopreventorminimisedamagetothe

environment’, it may be deprived of the whole or part of any special compensation due under’

Art�4.�46

§7-4.4.3 Salvors and Pollution

Salvorsmaybeeitherindependentoperators,opportunisticallyinterveningonavoluntarybasis

tosavepropertyindanger,ortheymaybeengagedascontractorsunderasalvagecontract.Inthe

latterevent,thetermsofthecontractwilldeterminewhetherthesalvorsareservantsofthesalved

propertyorwhethertheyremainindependentcontractors.Inanyofthesecapacities,salvorsmay

cause pollution. Where there is a master/servant relationship between salvor and shipowner,

liabilityforsuchpollutionmaybevicariouslyattributedtotheshipownerasthesalvor’semployer.

Theshipownerwouldthenbeboundtomakegoodprovenlossesinaccordancewiththeregime

�46 Uponwhichsee§7-8.

alsofoundaseparateclaimbytheshipowneragainstthatsalvor.Theleadingcaseonthenegli-

genceofsalvorsisThe Toyo Maru�40whereadiveremployedbythesalvors,butwithouttheir

instructions,firedaCoxboltintoanareaoftheToyo Maru whichhadnotbeengas-freed.The

resultantexplosioncauseddamagewhichexceededthesalvedvalueoftheship,whencorrectly

takingthedamageintoaccount.IntheCourtofAppeal,LordDenningfoundthatthenegligence

couldbeusedonlyasashieldagainstthesalvageaward,butnotasaswordwithwhichtosuethe

salvors.LordDenning’sopinionwasoverruledbytheHouseofLords,whichallowedtheowners

aclaimagainstthesalvorsbasedontheirvicariousnegligence.

Anotuncommonoccurrenceduringsalvageoperations,andperhapsacarry-overfromthepsyche

oflootingandwrecking,istheftfromthesalvedvesselbyasalvagecrew.InThe Kenora�4� the

masterandcrewlosttheirrightstosalvagealtogetherhavingstolenpersonaleffectsandstores.But

theownersinthatcasewerenotprivytothetheft,andthecourtupheldtheViceAdmiraltyCourtat

CapeTown’sdecisioninThe Scindia,�42allowingtheownerstoclaimsalvageintheirownright.

Misconduct of the salvors less than negligence, particularly duress, violence or overbearing

conductduringthesalvageandexhorbitantdemandsmadeofterrifiedmasters,wouldallexpose

salvorstoalesseningoftheirawards.�43

Mayasalvorbeaccountabletoapersonsufferinglossbyreasonofthesalvor’sfailuretoactat

allorsufficiently?Isanypersonobliged(otherthanintermsofthestatutorydutyimposedbythe

WreckandSalvageActuponaSouthAfricanshiptorenderassistancetoanyshipindistress)to

rendersalvageservicestoanother?InThe Antoinette�44afishingboatownerwasheldliabletothe

dependantsofadrownedcrewmemberinconsequenceofthevesselhavingbeensenttoseawith

anunseaworthyengine.Whentheownerfailedtorespondtoadistresscallfromthevessel,andshe

sank,thecourtheldtheowneraccountable.Inthiscasehowever,therewasapeculiarrelationship

betweenthepotential‘salvor’andthoseindistress.�45Failureto‘rescue’andthepotentialliabilities

whichmayflowfromsuchfailure,shouldbedeterminednotbythemaritimelawofsalvage,but

bythelawofdelict.

�40 The Toyo Maru[�97�]�Lloyd’sRep34�(HL).

�4� The Kenora[�92�]P90.

�42 The Scindia(�866)2MLC(OS)232.SeealsoThe Clan Sutherland[�9�8]P332.

�43 The Atlas(�862)Lush5�8andThe Port Caledonia(�903)PD�84.ThiswasafactorinthesalvageoftheAmoco Cadiz,wherehermasterwasallegedtohavebeentardyinacceptingsalvage,andthesalvorswerealsoallegedtohavebeenoverbearingintheirdemandsforLloyd’sForm.Seefurther,§7-6.

�44 The Antoinette: Silva’s Fishing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Maweza �957(2)SA256(SCA).

�45 SeeadiscussionofthecaseinBobergThe Duty to Rescue(�982)��BML�94and230.

308 §7-4.4.1Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 308 4/20/06 1:00:52 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-4.4.2 The Salvage Convention and salvor’s misconduct

Article�8oftheSalvageConventiondealswithmisconduct:

‘Asalvormaybedeprivedofthewholeorpartofthepaymentdueunderthisconven-tiontotheextentthatthesalvageoperationshavebecomenecessaryormoredifficultbecauseoffaultorneglectonhispartorifthesalvorhasbeenguiltoffraudorotherdishonestconduct.’

Insimpleterms,ifonevesselcausesapredicamentinwhichanothervesselrequiressalvage,the

errantvesselmaybedeprivedofsalvage,ormaybeentitledtoalesserawardforsalvage.The

Articledelimits thecommon lawby requiring that the faultorneglectof thesalvor shouldbe

suchastohaveoccasionedthesalvageinthefirstplace,ortohavemadesalvagemoredifficult.

Wherethenegligenceofthesalvordoesneither,butperhapsonlycausesotherlossestothesalved

vessel’sowners(suchasbyexcessivedelaycausedbythefaultofthesalvor)itisdoubtfulthat

theshipownerwouldbeabletoinvokeArt�8toreducetheaward.Theshipowner’srightswould

belimitedtoacounterclaimfordamagescausedtoitbythesalvor’sfault.

Theconductofthesalvorshouldstillbetestedagainstordinarycommonlawprinciplesoffault

andnegligence,butinsodoing,acourtshouldalsonowtakeintoaccountthespecificconvention

dutiesofthesalvor,assetoutinArt8.Article8(�)confirmsthatthesalvorshalloweadutyof

caretotheownerofthevesseloranyotherpropertyindanger.Thesalvoristhenobligedtocarry

outthesalvageoperationswithduecare,seekingassistancefromandacceptinginterventionof

othersalvors.

Whereasalvorhasbeennegligentandhas‘therebyfailedtopreventorminimisedamagetothe

environment’, it may be deprived of the whole or part of any special compensation due under’

Art�4.�46

§7-4.4.3 Salvors and Pollution

Salvorsmaybeeitherindependentoperators,opportunisticallyinterveningonavoluntarybasis

tosavepropertyindanger,ortheymaybeengagedascontractorsunderasalvagecontract.Inthe

latterevent,thetermsofthecontractwilldeterminewhetherthesalvorsareservantsofthesalved

propertyorwhethertheyremainindependentcontractors.Inanyofthesecapacities,salvorsmay

cause pollution. Where there is a master/servant relationship between salvor and shipowner,

liabilityforsuchpollutionmaybevicariouslyattributedtotheshipownerasthesalvor’semployer.

Theshipownerwouldthenbeboundtomakegoodprovenlossesinaccordancewiththeregime



Chapter 7.indd 309 4/20/06 1:00:52 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

savedshouldbeliabletopaysuchincreasedrateofsalvage,theship,thefreight,andthecargo,eachinproportiontoitsvalue.’�5�

Where property salvage was accompanied by the saving of life, the court would use the life

salvageeffortstoenhancethepropertysalvageaward,andtheenhancementforlifesalvagewas

payablenotonlybytheownersoftheship,butalsobyownersofcargoandfreight.�52Thisprin-

ciplewasagainupheldinThe Cargo ex The Sarpendon.�53

Thecourtwouldalsorecogniseacontractmadeforthe‘salvage’ofendangeredlives.�54Thusin

The Medina�55 PhillimoreJallowedacontracttosavethelivesof55pilgrimsstrandedonarock

intheRedSea,butreducedtheamountoftheagreedrewardbecausethemasterofthesalvaging

vessel, theTimor,hadcoerced theMedina’smaster intosigninganagreement to rescueforan

unconscionably high reward. In awarding £� 000 for life salvage, the learned judge remarked

that

‘hadthemasternotsavedthepilgrimshewouldhavebeeninnobetterpositionthanapirate.Buttherewasstillasalvagecontract.Althoughtherewasavaluablesalvageservice,£4000wasanexcessivereward’.

Following a long line of English statutes beginning in �846,�56 the SouthAfricanWreck and

SalvageAct,�996,providesins�5:

‘(�) Salvageshallbepayabletothesalvorbytheowneroftheshiportheownerofanywreck,whetherornotsuchshiporwreckhasbeensaved,whenservicesarerenderedinsavinglifefromanyship.

�5� Ibid,at393.

�52 Ibid,at394. ConfirmedonappealbytheHouseofLordsperLordChelmsfordat398:

‘TheobjectoftheLegislatureinthedifferentsections[ofthestatutoryconfirmationoflifesalvagecontainedinthethenBritishMerchantShippingAct,�854]referredtoseemstohavebeentogivealegislativesanctiontothepracticeoftheCourtofAdmiraltyofindirectlyrewardingsalvorsforthepreservationofHumanlife,byallowingthevalueoftheirservicestobemadeforthesubjectofadistinctestimate,butwithoutintendingtofixtheresponsibilityofpaymentupononeclassofownersofpropertyinvolvedinthecommonperil,morethanonanother.

�53 The Cargo ex The Sarpedon(�877)3PD28.PhillimoreJsaid:

‘Theliabilitytopayareasonableamountofsalvagetolifesalvorsisimposeduponownersofcargoaswellasuponownersoftheship.Suchliabliityisnotageneralpersonalliabilitytobeenforcedinanycircumstances,whethertheshipandcargoarelostornot,butaliabilitylimitedtothevalueofthepropertysavedfromdestruction.’

�54 Kennedy, op citat§234opinesthatitismoreaccuratetoregardsuchacontractnotasasalvagecontract(becausenopropertyisrequiredtobesalvaged)butrathera‘contractinthenatureofsalvage’.

�55 The Medina (�876)�PD272.SeealsoThe Lomonosoff [�92�]P97.

�56 TheWreckandSalvageAct(�846)9&�0Victc99s�9.

applicableinthejurisdictionwherethepollutionoccurs–inSouthAfricaintheMarinePollution

(ControlandCivilLiability)Act,�986.�47

Theshipownerwouldhavearightofrecourseagainstthesalvor,andthelatter,whereaninde-

pendantcontractororanopportunist intervener,wouldasownerof the salvagingvessel, incur

apersonal liabilityunder theMarinePollutionAct forpollutiondamage.Thesalvor should in

appropriatecircumstancesbeabletolimititsliabilityundertheAct(whichatthisstagereflects

theCLClimits),�48accordingtothetonnageofthesalvagingvessel(notthetonnageofthevessel

fromwhichthepollutionstems).

§7-5 LifeSalvage�49

Bystrangecontrast to thephilanthropicapproachofAdmiralty jurisdiction in rewarding those

whohavegratuitouslycometotheaidofmaritimepropertyfoundindangeratsea,Admiralty’s

munificence was not extended to reward the saving of life where there was no property also

salvaged.Lifesalvagewouldonlybeawardedancillarytopropertysalvage,butgaverisetono

causeofactioninitsownright.TheleadingcaseontraditionallifesalvageinBritainisundoubt-

edlyThe Fusilier,�50 inwhich theFusilier ranaground inheavyseason theGirdlerSandsoff

Margate,with95passengersonboard.Thecrewsofatugandalifeboatmanagedtorescueall

thepassengersbeforerefloatingthevesselthefollowingday.Oneoftheissueswhicharosewas

whetheranincrementforlifesalvageshouldbebornebyallthesalvedinterests,shipcargoand

freight.ThecasewasdecidedbyDrLushingtonandthentakenonappealtotheHouseofLords.

Dr Lushington summarised the traditional law of salvage (prior to the enactment of statutes

enablingaclaimtobemadeforlifesalvageinitsownright)thus:

‘Wherenopropertyhadbeensaved,andlifealonehadbeenpreservedfromdestruction,nosuitforsalvagerewardcouldbemaintained.Onereasonforthisstateofthelawwas,thatnopropertycouldbearrestedapplicabletothepurpose.Therecouldbenoproceed-ingin rem,theancientfoundationofasalvagesuit.Insomecasesithappenedthatonesetofpersonsexclusivelysavedlife,andanotherwhollydistinctsetsavedtheshipandcargo;butinthiscasealsothesalvorsoflifecouldnotrenderthepropertyamenabletotheirclaims.Butwherelifeandpropertyhadbeensavedbyonesetofsalvors,itwasthepracticeoftheCourttogivealargeramountofsalvagethanhadthepropertyonlybeensaved;andthisdoctrinerestsonhighauthority.Thepractice,too,wasthatalltheproperty

�47 TheInternationalConventiononCivilLiabilityforOilPollutionDamage,�969.

�48 Seefurther§��-2.

�49 Seegenerally,Kennedy, op cit§223-260;ThomasLife SalvageJML&C�978;andcfBobergThe Duty to Rescue,supra.

�50 The Fusilier(�865)Br&Lush34�.

310 §7-5Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 310 4/20/06 1:00:53 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

savedshouldbeliabletopaysuchincreasedrateofsalvage,theship,thefreight,andthecargo,eachinproportiontoitsvalue.’�5�

Where property salvage was accompanied by the saving of life, the court would use the life

salvageeffortstoenhancethepropertysalvageaward,andtheenhancementforlifesalvagewas

payablenotonlybytheownersoftheship,butalsobyownersofcargoandfreight.�52Thisprin-

ciplewasagainupheldinThe Cargo ex The Sarpendon.�53

Thecourtwouldalsorecogniseacontractmadeforthe‘salvage’ofendangeredlives.�54Thusin

The Medina�55 PhillimoreJallowedacontracttosavethelivesof55pilgrimsstrandedonarock

intheRedSea,butreducedtheamountoftheagreedrewardbecausethemasterofthesalvaging

vessel, theTimor,hadcoerced theMedina’smaster intosigninganagreement to rescueforan

unconscionably high reward. In awarding £� 000 for life salvage, the learned judge remarked

that

‘hadthemasternotsavedthepilgrimshewouldhavebeeninnobetterpositionthanapirate.Buttherewasstillasalvagecontract.Althoughtherewasavaluablesalvageservice,£4000wasanexcessivereward’.

Following a long line of English statutes beginning in �846,�56 the SouthAfricanWreck and

SalvageAct,�996,providesins�5:

‘(�) Salvageshallbepayabletothesalvorbytheowneroftheshiportheownerofanywreck,whetherornotsuchshiporwreckhasbeensaved,whenservicesarerenderedinsavinglifefromanyship.

�5� Ibid,at393.

�52 Ibid,at394. ConfirmedonappealbytheHouseofLordsperLordChelmsfordat398:

‘TheobjectoftheLegislatureinthedifferentsections[ofthestatutoryconfirmationoflifesalvagecontainedinthethenBritishMerchantShippingAct,�854]referredtoseemstohavebeentogivealegislativesanctiontothepracticeoftheCourtofAdmiraltyofindirectlyrewardingsalvorsforthepreservationofHumanlife,byallowingthevalueoftheirservicestobemadeforthesubjectofadistinctestimate,butwithoutintendingtofixtheresponsibilityofpaymentupononeclassofownersofpropertyinvolvedinthecommonperil,morethanonanother.

�53 The Cargo ex The Sarpedon(�877)3PD28.PhillimoreJsaid:

‘Theliabilitytopayareasonableamountofsalvagetolifesalvorsisimposeduponownersofcargoaswellasuponownersoftheship.Suchliabliityisnotageneralpersonalliabilitytobeenforcedinanycircumstances,whethertheshipandcargoarelostornot,butaliabilitylimitedtothevalueofthepropertysavedfromdestruction.’

�54 Kennedy, op citat§234opinesthatitismoreaccuratetoregardsuchacontractnotasasalvagecontract(becausenopropertyisrequiredtobesalvaged)butrathera‘contractinthenatureofsalvage’.

�55 The Medina (�876)�PD272.SeealsoThe Lomonosoff [�92�]P97.

�56 TheWreckandSalvageAct(�846)9&�0Victc99s�9.

§7-5 311life salvage

Chapter 7.indd 311 4/20/06 1:00:53 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

thesalvorforsalvingthevesselorotherpropertyorpreventingorminimisingdamagetotheenvironment.’

UndertheConvention,thelifesalvorthusbecomesastakeholderinthesuccessofpropertyand

environmentalsalvage,thoughheorshemaynotstakeaclaimforlifesalvagewithoutitbeing

ancillarytopropertysalvage.

§7-6 Thetankerphenomenon:fundamentalchangesintraditionalsalvage

Whenwelookedatthegeneralprinciplesofsalvage,wefoundthatoneoftheessentialelements

was success.Without success, therecanbeno salvage servicewarranting reward.Perhaps the

salvormayonlymakeacontributiontowardsthatsuccessasaco-salvor;oritmaybereplacedby

asecondsalvor;butattheendoftheday,fortheretobeasalvageservicegivingrisetoasalvage

award,theremustbesuccess.Thesalvedpropertymustsurvivethesalvage,andindeedbeplaced

inabetterpositionthanitwasatthecommencementofthesalvageservices.Thesalvor,asLord

Phillimoresaid,mustmakea‘meritoriouscontributiontowardsultimatesuccess’.�59

ButwesawalsothatoneofDrLushington’s‘manyanddiverseingredients’ofasalvageserviceis

thereductionofriskstothirdpartiestotheextentthattheownerofthesalvedshipmaybeliable

forthem:inotherwordsthelesseningofasalvedship’spotentialliabilitiestothirdpartiesisa

factoraffectingtheassessmentofthesalvagereward.

Theminimisingofthedeleteriouseffectsofamarineaccidentuponinnocentthirdpartiesdoesnot

howevergiverisetoanyspecialrightsofclaimagainstthosethirdparties.Theclaimliesagainst

thesalvedpropertyonly.Kennedy,aswesaw,thusregardedtheserisksas‘collateral’tothedanger

tothesalvedvessel,whereasBriceleanstowardslookingattheseservicesaspossiblyfounding

aclaimagainstthesalvedship,intheirownright.Theresultofbothapproacheshoweverisan

enhancementofthesalvagereward.

Andregardlessofwhotheultimatebeneficiaryof thesesalvageservices is, traditionalsalvage

hasgiventhesalvagerewardtothesalvoratthecostofthesalvedpropertyandnotagainstother

thirdpartyinterestsnoragainsttheirinsurers.

�59 The Melanie v The San Onofre(�925)AC246(HL).SeealsotheSouthAfricancasesofThe Cervantes and The Batavier : Hartjie v Maasdyk(�876)6Buch�02at2�2inwhichthecourtawardedaquantum meruitforpartialsalvage,applyingThe Charlotte(�848)3WRob68andThe Scindia2MLC(OS)232.SimilarlyinThe Georgetta Lawrence and The Calcutta(�878)8Buch�02at�05. [Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

(2) NotwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedintheConvention,thepaymentofsalvageinrespectofthepreservationoflifeshallhavepriorityoverallotherclaimsforsalvage.

(3) Whentheshiporwreckislostorthevaluethereofisinsufficient,afterpaymentoftheactualexpensesincurred,topaytheamountofsalvagepayableinrespectofthepreservationoflife,theMinistermay,inhisorherdiscretion,awardtothesalvor,outofmoneysmadeavailablebyParliamentforthepurpose,�57suchsumasheorshethinksfit,inwholeorpartsatisfactionofanyamountofsalvagesoleftunpaid.

Thesectionreferstotheliabilityof‘theowneroftheship’,presumingthatpersonsshallbeonaship

whensaved.Itthenprovidesanalternate,butnotadditionalliabilityof‘theownerofanywreck’,

which,bydefinition,couldincludecargo.�58Totheextentthatthesectiondoesnotmakeclearthe

correlativeliabilityofshipcargoandfreightforthepaymentoflifesalvage,thiswordingiscontrary

tothetraditionalprinciplesoflifesalvage.Itdoes,however,clearlyalterthetraditionalprinciple

thatlifesalvageisnotclaimableunlesspropoertyalsobesaved.Thecleareffectofthewordingis

thatacauseofactionforlifesalvagearisesinitsownright,againsttheownerofaship,includinga

wreckedship,whetherornotthatshipherselfbesalvaged.Notcleariswhethersuchaclaimforlife

salvagemaybebroughtagainstship,cargoandfreight.Thesomewhatvaguewordingofthesection

maybenefitfromananalysisofthecommonlawwhichthesectionsoughttochange.Inthatcontext,

thealternativeexpressedas‘or’maydemandanadjuctive‘and’interpretation.

The Salvage Convention and life salvage

Article�6oftheSalvageConventionleavesthequestionoflifesalvageopenforregulationby

nationallaws.Itconfirmsthehumanitarianprinciplethatthosewhoselivesaresavedatseashould

notbecalledupontopayanypricefortheirrescue:

‘Noremunerationisduefrompersonswhoselivesaresaved,butnothinginthisarticleshallaffecttheprovisionsofnationallawonthissubject.’

TheConventionthenconfirmsthetraditionalenhancementprinciplethus:

‘Asalvorofhumanlife,whohastakenpartintheservicesrenderedontheoccasionoftheaccidentgivingrisetosalvage,isentitledtoafairshareofthepaymentawardedto

�57 NomonieshaveyetbeenallocatedbyParliamentforthepaymentoflifesalvage.ThelifesalvageprovisionshavebeeninforcesincetheMerchantShippingAct,�95�whichcameintoeffectin�960.Section300oftheMerchantShippingAct,�95�Actdealtwithlifesalvage.ItwasrepealedbytheWreckandSalvageAct,�996.Thereisnownodistinctiondrawnbetweenlocalandforeignships.Thenewsectionappliestoallships,andlifesalvagerenderedanywhere.

�58 TheAct,ins�,defineswreckasincludingcargooranyportionthereof.

312 §7-5Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 312 4/20/06 1:00:54 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

thesalvorforsalvingthevesselorotherpropertyorpreventingorminimisingdamagetotheenvironment.’

UndertheConvention,thelifesalvorthusbecomesastakeholderinthesuccessofpropertyand

environmentalsalvage,thoughheorshemaynotstakeaclaimforlifesalvagewithoutitbeing

ancillarytopropertysalvage.

§7-6 Thetankerphenomenon:fundamentalchangesintraditionalsalvage

Whenwelookedatthegeneralprinciplesofsalvage,wefoundthatoneoftheessentialelements

was success.Without success, therecanbeno salvage servicewarranting reward.Perhaps the

salvormayonlymakeacontributiontowardsthatsuccessasaco-salvor;oritmaybereplacedby

asecondsalvor;butattheendoftheday,fortheretobeasalvageservicegivingrisetoasalvage

award,theremustbesuccess.Thesalvedpropertymustsurvivethesalvage,andindeedbeplaced

inabetterpositionthanitwasatthecommencementofthesalvageservices.Thesalvor,asLord

Phillimoresaid,mustmakea‘meritoriouscontributiontowardsultimatesuccess’.�59

ButwesawalsothatoneofDrLushington’s‘manyanddiverseingredients’ofasalvageserviceis

thereductionofriskstothirdpartiestotheextentthattheownerofthesalvedshipmaybeliable

forthem:inotherwordsthelesseningofasalvedship’spotentialliabilitiestothirdpartiesisa

factoraffectingtheassessmentofthesalvagereward.

Theminimisingofthedeleteriouseffectsofamarineaccidentuponinnocentthirdpartiesdoesnot

howevergiverisetoanyspecialrightsofclaimagainstthosethirdparties.Theclaimliesagainst

thesalvedpropertyonly.Kennedy,aswesaw,thusregardedtheserisksas‘collateral’tothedanger

tothesalvedvessel,whereasBriceleanstowardslookingattheseservicesaspossiblyfounding

aclaimagainstthesalvedship,intheirownright.Theresultofbothapproacheshoweverisan

enhancementofthesalvagereward.

Andregardlessofwhotheultimatebeneficiaryof thesesalvageservices is, traditionalsalvage

hasgiventhesalvagerewardtothesalvoratthecostofthesalvedpropertyandnotagainstother

thirdpartyinterestsnoragainsttheirinsurers.

�59 The Melanie v The San Onofre(�925)AC246(HL).SeealsotheSouthAfricancasesofThe Cervantes and The Batavier : Hartjie v Maasdyk(�876)6Buch�02at2�2inwhichthecourtawardedaquantum meruitforpartialsalvage,applyingThe Charlotte(�848)3WRob68andThe Scindia2MLC(OS)232.SimilarlyinThe Georgetta Lawrence and The Calcutta(�878)8Buch�02at�05. [Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

§7-6 313tanker phenomenon

Chapter 7.indd 313 4/20/06 1:00:54 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

In trying toassessawardsforsalvage inwhichenvironmentaldamagewasaverted,arbitrators

facedgreatdifficultyinreducingthepotentialofthedisasteranditsprobableliabilitiestomoney

terms.Fortraditionalsalvagelawrequiredthedangertobe‘realandsensible’andnotpurelya

questionoffancy.�64DrLushington,towhomtheconceptofa400000tonVLCCwouldhave

been science fiction, talks inThe Phantom�65 ofa ‘reasonableapprehension’ in relation to the

danger inwhich thevessel findsherself’.Presumably the samecouldapply to theprobability

ofliabilities.Buttraditionalsalvageconceptscouldnotembracethetankerphenomenonandits

catastrophicpossibilities.Indeedtheshippingworlditselfhidfromtherealitiesofamajoronshore

crudeoilspill.Thesituationwasfarfromperfect.Arbitratorsandthecourtsseemedreluctantto

laydownguidelinesforthecalculationoftheenhancementunderthe�972Lloyd’sFormterms,

and,astheonusofestablishingdangerrestedfirmlyonthesalvors,voluminoussalvageclaims

outliningthepotentialcatastrophiceffectsofasalvageincidentwerelodged–volumeswhichin

turnhadtobemetwithequallyvoluminouscounterarguments that theenvisagedresultswere

speculativefancy.

Theproblemdidnotendwithaninconsistentapproachtoenhancementagainstthesalvedfund:

Should thearbitratorconsider the limitationof liabilityof thesalvedshipwhichwouldreduce

thatship’spotentialexposuredramatically?Should theP&IClubliability insurers,whowould

inrealityfootthebill,contribute?Shouldnottheoilcompanieswhoownthecargoesandwho

standtogainthemostfromtheirsuccessfuldeliverystandupandbecountedinthepaymentof

salvageenhancementsarisingfromthreatstotheenvironmentposedbytheircargoeseventhough

theyarenotthemselvesprimarilyliableforpollutionemanatingfromtheship?Andperhapsthe

mostimportantquestionofall,whataboutrewardingthesalvorsinasituationwheretheyspenda

fortuneintimeandmoneyattemptingtosaveatankerandhercargowithoutultimatesuccess,or

worse,incircumstanceswheretheshipownerandpossiblythesalvorsthemselvesareprevented

from securing a ‘salved fund’ by governmental intervention. No salved fund, no salvage. No

salvage,nosalvors.Somethingclearlyhadtobedone.

Thesituationwasbrought toaheadby thegroundingof theAmoco Cadiz in�978.Themaster,

allegedlytardyincallingforandlateracceptinghelp,wasreluctanttosigntheoldLloyd’sform.

wereagreedat£�9,288million,andtheLloyd’sarbitratoronapre-LOF�980gaveLMS£225000or�,�6%ofthesalvedvalues.Thiswasscantenhancement.AsimilarquantityofcrudeoilonboardtheAmoco Cadiz (220000tons)whichgroundedontheBrittanycoastinMarch�978gaverisetoliabilitiesofover$5billion.SalvageoftheAmoco Cadiz wouldhavesavedtheshipownerpotentialliabilitiesof$5billion.YetthetotaloftheLatirusaward,involvingthepotentialspillofagreaterquantityofcrudeoil,was£225000orapprox$700000a

�64 The Helmsman(�950)84LlRep207.

�65 The Phantom(�866)LR�A&E58at60.

Wherethesamesalvageservicegivesmorebenefittoonesalvedpropertyinterestthantoanother

(asforexampleinThe Velox,�60whereherringswereindangerofspoilingbecausetheshiphadrun

shortoffuel,buttheshipherselfwasinlittleornodanger)thentheawardshouldbeproportionate

tothedegreeofdangertowhicheachsuchpropertyinterestwasexposed.�6�Eachsuchinterest

individuallythuscomprisesthesalvedfundcollectively.Andthesalvedfundpaysthebill.Ifthere

benosuccess,thereisnosalvedfundandthereforenoaward,regardlessofhowmeritoriousthe

serviceswere.TheunderlyingprinciplewasexpressedinArt2ofthe�9�0BrusselsConvention

onSalvage:‘Innocaseshallthesumtobepaidexceedthevalueofthepropertysalved’.Thiswas

asignificantlimitationonthegeneralprincipleexpressedinArt2ofthatConvention:‘Everyact

ofassistanceorsalvagewhichhashadausefulresultgivesarighttoequitableremuneration’.

Thesalvedpropertymighthaveavaluetoosmalltosupportequitableremunerationforservices

givingthemostusefulresults.And,moreinequitably,theremaybenosalvedpropertybutthere

mayneverthelesshavebeenverycostly,usefulservicesrenderedbythesalvorinattemptingto

salvagethevesselandhercargowhichinthemselveslessenedtheliabilitiesofthevesselwhich

was lost notwithstanding.Although these liabilities survive the vessel, the salvor’s claim dies

withit.

Considerthetankerphenomenon:theaverage270000tonVLCChasacargothevalueofwhich

couldexceedthevalueoftheship.ThetotalsalvedfundofaladenVLCC,comprisingship,cargo

andfreight,isthuslikelytobeconsiderable,andthearbitratorwhenassessingtheawardshould

takeintoaccountthepotentialliabilitiesthathavebeensavedtheshipowner.ApplyingThe Velox

however,itisonlytheawardagainsttheshipwhichshouldcarrytheenhancement.Foritisthe

shipwhich,intermsofmostoilpollutionlegislation,carriestheliabilityforpollution.�62

Undertheregimeoftraditionalsalvagelawandthe�9�0Convention,salvorscomplained(and

justifiably) that the enhancements given for prevention of ecological disasters were too small

andtooarbitrary.Indeedthe�9�0Conventionmadenomentionofthesavingofliabilitiesorthe

avoidanceofecologicaldamageas factors tobeconsidered in theassessmentof theaward.�63

�60 The Velox[�906]P263.

�6� Seefurtherdiscussionin Brice, op citat320.

�62 CfBrice, op citat§4-27whereheconcludesthatThe Veloxprincipleis‘decidedlyopentoquestion’.Briceconcludesthattheliabilityenhancementshouldbebornerateablyaccordingtovalues.

�63 TheLatirusisperhapsanexample.ShewasafullyladenShelltankerwhichwasdisabledofftheCapeofGoodHope.Hersalvorsemployedaspecialisttug,operatedbyspecialistprofessionalsalvorswithconsiderableexperienceandskill.TheysalvagedtheLatirusfromapositioninwhichshewasboundtorunaground,therebeingargumentonlyastowhetherthiswouldhavebeensoonerratherthanlater.Shewastotallydisabledwithnoprospectofrepairingherselfintimetoavoidgroundingandwithnopowertodropheranchors.Thebottomwasraggedandfoul.Shewouldnothavecomeoffeasilyoncesomeoilescapedandherresidualbuoyancywasreduced.Values

314 §7-6Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 314 4/20/06 1:00:55 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

In trying toassessawardsforsalvage inwhichenvironmentaldamagewasaverted,arbitrators

facedgreatdifficultyinreducingthepotentialofthedisasteranditsprobableliabilitiestomoney

terms.Fortraditionalsalvagelawrequiredthedangertobe‘realandsensible’andnotpurelya

questionoffancy.�64DrLushington,towhomtheconceptofa400000tonVLCCwouldhave

been science fiction, talks inThe Phantom�65 ofa ‘reasonableapprehension’ in relation to the

danger inwhich thevessel findsherself’.Presumably the samecouldapply to theprobability

ofliabilities.Buttraditionalsalvageconceptscouldnotembracethetankerphenomenonandits

catastrophicpossibilities.Indeedtheshippingworlditselfhidfromtherealitiesofamajoronshore

crudeoilspill.Thesituationwasfarfromperfect.Arbitratorsandthecourtsseemedreluctantto

laydownguidelinesforthecalculationoftheenhancementunderthe�972Lloyd’sFormterms,

and,astheonusofestablishingdangerrestedfirmlyonthesalvors,voluminoussalvageclaims

outliningthepotentialcatastrophiceffectsofasalvageincidentwerelodged–volumeswhichin

turnhadtobemetwithequallyvoluminouscounterarguments that theenvisagedresultswere

speculativefancy.

Theproblemdidnotendwithaninconsistentapproachtoenhancementagainstthesalvedfund:

Should thearbitratorconsider the limitationof liabilityof thesalvedshipwhichwouldreduce

thatship’spotentialexposuredramatically?Should theP&IClubliability insurers,whowould

inrealityfootthebill,contribute?Shouldnottheoilcompanieswhoownthecargoesandwho

standtogainthemostfromtheirsuccessfuldeliverystandupandbecountedinthepaymentof

salvageenhancementsarisingfromthreatstotheenvironmentposedbytheircargoeseventhough

theyarenotthemselvesprimarilyliableforpollutionemanatingfromtheship?Andperhapsthe

mostimportantquestionofall,whataboutrewardingthesalvorsinasituationwheretheyspenda

fortuneintimeandmoneyattemptingtosaveatankerandhercargowithoutultimatesuccess,or

worse,incircumstanceswheretheshipownerandpossiblythesalvorsthemselvesareprevented

from securing a ‘salved fund’ by governmental intervention. No salved fund, no salvage. No

salvage,nosalvors.Somethingclearlyhadtobedone.

Thesituationwasbrought toaheadby thegroundingof theAmoco Cadiz in�978.Themaster,

allegedlytardyincallingforandlateracceptinghelp,wasreluctanttosigntheoldLloyd’sform.

wereagreedat£�9,288million,andtheLloyd’sarbitratoronapre-LOF�980gaveLMS£225000or�,�6%ofthesalvedvalues.Thiswasscantenhancement.AsimilarquantityofcrudeoilonboardtheAmoco Cadiz (220000tons)whichgroundedontheBrittanycoastinMarch�978gaverisetoliabilitiesofover$5billion.SalvageoftheAmoco Cadiz wouldhavesavedtheshipownerpotentialliabilitiesof$5billion.YetthetotaloftheLatirusaward,involvingthepotentialspillofagreaterquantityofcrudeoil,was£225000orapprox$700000a

�64 The Helmsman(�950)84LlRep207.

�65 The Phantom(�866)LR�A&E58at60.

§7-6 315tanker phenomenon

Chapter 7.indd 315 4/20/06 1:00:55 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Ensuringthatprofessionalsalvorsparticularlyareassuredthattheirsubstantialcosts

willbemetinallcircumstances,andfurtherthatawardsareofasizetoencourage

professionalsalvorstostayinthemarket.

Helpingthesalvor,whooftenhastowaittwoyearsforhisawardtobeprocessed,to

improvehiscashflowbyinterimawards,atleastcoveringthesalvor’scosts.

Streamliningtheprovisionofsalvagesecurity,particularlyonbehalfofcargo.

Governingtheeffectofsalvor’smisconductinthethreesituations:

(a)wherethesalvageoperationsresultfromthesalvor’sfaultorneglect(egcollisions);

(b)wheretheybecomemoredifficultbecauseofhisfault(egtheToyo Maru);and

(c)wherethesalvor’sconducthasbeenimproperordishonest.

Allowingasalvortoavailitselfofthe�976LondonConventionontheLimitationof

MaritimeClaimswhenitsnegligenceexposesittoliabilityinstateswhicharenota

partytotheLondonConvention(whichappliestosalvors).

TheCMIcommittee,withtheaboveaimsinmind,producedthe�98�draftsalvageconvention

fordiscussionataspecialmeetingconvenedinMontrealinMay�98�atwhichrepresentatives

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

The salvage tugmasterwascriticisedby someashavingpurposelywaited for thevessel toget

intoapositionofrealdanger–heheldback,soitwassuggested,untilthedangertothevesselwas

immediate,thelossofcargoprobable,andtheriskofpollutionwouldbeunequivocal.Evenonce

aLloyd’sFormwasagreed,therewasreportedlythebareminimumofco-operationbetweenthe

tankercrewandthesalvors.Themasterwasreluctanttocallinothersalvorstohelpthefirstsalvor

whenithadbecomeclearthatthefirstcouldnotsucceedalone;andthesalvors,whenhelpbecame

available,werereluctanttoacceptthathelpforfearofhavingtosharetheiraward.Theresultswere

cataclysmic.

Underpressurefromtheprofessionalsalvorswho,withLloyd’s,wereworkingonanewLloyd’s

OpenForm,TheInternationalConsultativeOrganisation(IMCO,asitthenwas)decidedtotake

the initiative in examiningwhere traditional salvage lawswere falling shyofmodern require-

ments.AndtheCMI�66offereditsservicestoIMCOtoestablishastudygroup.InJune�979work

commencedandthecommitteeidentifiedthefollowingproblemareas,verymuchexemplifiedby

theAmoco Cadiz:

Regulationofdutiesofthevesselindistress,particularlythedutytotaketimelyaction

tocallinasalvor;thedutytoco-operatewithsalvors;thedutytorequireoraccept

othersalvors’serviceswhenthefirstsalvorcannotcompletethemalone;andtheduty

toacceptdeliveryofthesalvedpropertyatasafeplace.

Regulationofthesalvor’sduties,particularlythedutytousehisbestendeavoursto

salvethevesselasspeedilyaspossibleandtominimisedamagetotheenvironment;

andthedutytoaccepttheco-operationofothersalvorswhencircumstancesreasonably

sorequire.

Theprovisionofanincentivetosalvorstoexpendtimeandefforttominimisedanger

totheenvironmentswherethereislittleprospectofsuccessandthereforeofafund.

Wideningthenotionof‘salvedvessel’intraditionalsalvagelawtoincludevessels

strandedorsunk(butstillexcludingwreckremoval).

Preservingsalvors’rightsincasesofstateinterventionandimposinguponstatesthe

dutytoallowsalvedvesselsindistress(describedbytheInternationalSalvageUnionas

‘maritimelepers’)intotheirportswherethisisreasonable.

Expandingthenotionofinterferencewithacontractex post factowhereundue

influenceisexertedeitherbythesalvorsorbythedangeritself,orwherethecontract

providesinanyeventforarewardexcessivelylargeorsmall.

�66 Comite Maritime International,representingtheworld’sMaritimeLawAssociations.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

316 §7-6Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 316 4/20/06 1:00:56 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Ensuringthatprofessionalsalvorsparticularlyareassuredthattheirsubstantialcosts

willbemetinallcircumstances,andfurtherthatawardsareofasizetoencourage

professionalsalvorstostayinthemarket.

Helpingthesalvor,whooftenhastowaittwoyearsforhisawardtobeprocessed,to

improvehiscashflowbyinterimawards,atleastcoveringthesalvor’scosts.

Streamliningtheprovisionofsalvagesecurity,particularlyonbehalfofcargo.

Governingtheeffectofsalvor’smisconductinthethreesituations:

(a)wherethesalvageoperationsresultfromthesalvor’sfaultorneglect(egcollisions);

(b)wheretheybecomemoredifficultbecauseofhisfault(egtheToyo Maru);and

(c)wherethesalvor’sconducthasbeenimproperordishonest.

Allowingasalvortoavailitselfofthe�976LondonConventionontheLimitationof

MaritimeClaimswhenitsnegligenceexposesittoliabilityinstateswhicharenota

partytotheLondonConvention(whichappliestosalvors).

TheCMIcommittee,withtheaboveaimsinmind,producedthe�98�draftsalvageconvention

fordiscussionataspecialmeetingconvenedinMontrealinMay�98�atwhichrepresentatives

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

§7-6 317lof safety net

Chapter 7.indd 317 4/20/06 1:00:56 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

current)editionofLloyd’sStandardFormofSalvageContract.�7�Lloyd’sForm,usedsince�890

andfirstpublishedin�908,hadchangedlittlesinceitsfirstdraft.Butit,likethetraditionalsalvage

lawwhichitreflectedwhichwasdestinedforreviewatMontrealandLondon,couldnotcopewith

theassaultontheenvironmentposedbytankersandtheircargoes.

TheobjectsofLloyd’sOpenFormwerenottobechanged:

Toprovideawellknown,thoughnotaltogetherwellloveddocument,readilyavailable

inanemergency,andgenerallyapprovedbyshipownersasalastresortfortheirmasters

indistress.

Togivesalvorsameansofgettingsecurityfortheirclaimswithoutresortingtothe

arrestofthesalvedvesselorhercargo.

Toprovideaspeedy,costeffectivetribunalofexpertsinthefieldofsalvagetoassess

salvageawards.

Buttherewerenowthreemainareasofimprovementapparent:

theencouragement–orratherthefinancialinducement–ofsalvorstousetheirbest

endeavourstosalvageoiltankersevenwherethereislittleornochanceofsuccess,

withtheviewtominimisingthedamagetotheenvironment.

theinducementofcargointerestswhicharenowoftenworthfarmorethanthevessel,

toputupsecurityfortheirshareofsalvagewiththeminimumofdelay,and

improvingthelimitationofasalvor’sliabilitiesinthelightoftheconsiderableincrease

inexposureduringmoderndaysalvageoperations.

After much discussion in many committees set up by Lloyd’s and the ISU, the principle of

the‘SafetyNet’wasdevised inpreference toaseparatefundof‘liabilitysalvage’ incasesof

environmentaldamageresultingfromtankercasualties.TheSafetyNetwasasubstantialmodi-

ficationofthetraditionalrequirementofsuccess:itcreateda‘no-cure-some-pay’guaranteethat

thesalvorwouldhaveatleasthiscostsmetwhere:

(a) thereissalvageofatankerladenorpartlyladenwithacargoofpotentiallypollutantoil;

and

(b) thesalvorisfreeofnegligence;and

�7� Generallyreferredtoas‘LOF’.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

ofmostoftheworld’sMaritimeLawAssociations,theInternationalSalvageUnion,�67theP&I

Clubsandthehullinsurancemarketswerepresent.TheISUarguedstronglyforrecognitionof

‘liabilitysalvage’initsownright.�68TheP&IClubs,as‘liabilityinsurers’oftheworld’stanker

fleets,didbattlewiththeISU;�69thecargounderwritersfoughthardagainstanattempttobring

themintothefundingof‘enhancement’ofawards;

The International Convention on Salvage, signed at London in �989, was the culmination of

thisclashofmaritimetitans,andoftheircompromises.Inrelationtothesavingofliabilitiesfor

environmentaldamage,itfollowedtheformatoftheLloyd’sOpenForm�980andits‘safetynet’,

embodyinga‘no-cure-some-pay’principleinrelationtoenvironmentalliability.

§7-7 Lloyd’sStandardForm,LOF1980andthesafetynet�70

AftertheAmoco Cadiz,andatthesametimeastheCMIbeganitsdiscussionswithIMCO,the

ISU formed a working party under Gerald Darling QC to consider changes to the �972 (then

�67 TheISUrepresentstheworld’sprincipaldeepwatersalvors.ForfullinformationabouttheISUanditscurrentmembership,seetheirwebsiteat<www.isu.com>.

�68 TonyWilbraham,thenPresidentofISU,ataLloyd’sseminarontheLOF�980inSeptember�980,expressedtheISU’sviewthus:

‘’Salvors[are]lookingforwhattheyregardasproperrecognitionoftheservicestheyprovideinpreventingpollutionwithinexistingwellestablishedsalvagepractice.Inotherwordsthey[are]lookingtotheacceptanceof‘liabilitysalvage’andtheestablishmentofaseparatefundoutofwhichthesalvorwouldreceiveanawardadditionaltoandseparatefromthepropertysalvageaward,butonthesamekindof‘nocure,nopay’basis.…Arbitratorsareabletoenhanceawardswherethepreventionoftheescapeofoilisarelevantpartoftheservicesprovided.Theconceptof‘enhancementmustberegardedasclearrecognitionoftheprincipleof‘liabilitysalvage’,butitisconcealedinaformofwordstomakeitmorepalatableforsomeoftheinterestsinvolved.Itisthesalvor’sviewthatthisprinciplemustbegivenmorestrengthandrecognisedfullyandopenly.’

�69 TheviewoftheClubswasgivenbyTerenceCoghlin,oftheUKMutualP&I,inhisreplyatthesameLloyd’sConference:

‘Traditionally,hullandcargounderwritershavecoveredsuccessfulpropertyawards,includingany‘enhancement’oftheseawardsinrespectoflifesalvage,orbecauseoftheparticulardifficultiesattendantonthecargobeingcarriedintheship.TheyremainpreparedtodosoagainsttheagreementoftheClubstomeettheguaranteed‘safetynet’nocure–somepayawardswherethereisnosuccessandnosalvedfund.Tointroduceanewconceptof‘liabilitysalvage’isbothunnecessaryandpotentiallyharmfultothoseengagedinsalvagesituationsandcouldleadtocertainsalvageoperationsnottakingplaceatall.Thearbitratorinassessingliabilitysalvagewouldineffecthavetohaveatrialwithinatrialofallpotentialliabilityclaims–consequentialorotherwise,atanabsurdlevelofspeculationandthedelaysinsettlingawardswouldprejudicesalvorsenormously.Andperhapsmoresimply,thebestwaytopreventpollutionistostoptheoilfromescapingfromtheship.Thebestwaytodothisistosalvagetheshipanditscargo,andthisshouldbethemainmotivationofandencouragementtosalvors.Thealternativewouldresultinadoublepaymenttothesalvor:onceforsavingtheshipandcargo,andagainforpreventingthecargofromescaping.’

�70 Seegenerally,ThomasLloyd’s Standard Form[�978]LMCQ276;BessemerClarkLSF 1980[�980]LMCQ297;Miller[LOF�980]JML&C�98�243;CoulthardA New Cure for Salvors?–LOF 1980v The CMI Montreal Draft ConventionJML&CVol�4No�Jan�983;BriceSalvage & Enhanced Awards[�985]LMCQ4�.

318 §7-7Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 318 4/20/06 1:00:56 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

current)editionofLloyd’sStandardFormofSalvageContract.�7�Lloyd’sForm,usedsince�890

andfirstpublishedin�908,hadchangedlittlesinceitsfirstdraft.Butit,likethetraditionalsalvage

lawwhichitreflectedwhichwasdestinedforreviewatMontrealandLondon,couldnotcopewith

theassaultontheenvironmentposedbytankersandtheircargoes.

TheobjectsofLloyd’sOpenFormwerenottobechanged:

Toprovideawellknown,thoughnotaltogetherwellloveddocument,readilyavailable

inanemergency,andgenerallyapprovedbyshipownersasalastresortfortheirmasters

indistress.

Togivesalvorsameansofgettingsecurityfortheirclaimswithoutresortingtothe

arrestofthesalvedvesselorhercargo.

Toprovideaspeedy,costeffectivetribunalofexpertsinthefieldofsalvagetoassess

salvageawards.

Buttherewerenowthreemainareasofimprovementapparent:

theencouragement–orratherthefinancialinducement–ofsalvorstousetheirbest

endeavourstosalvageoiltankersevenwherethereislittleornochanceofsuccess,

withtheviewtominimisingthedamagetotheenvironment.

theinducementofcargointerestswhicharenowoftenworthfarmorethanthevessel,

toputupsecurityfortheirshareofsalvagewiththeminimumofdelay,and

improvingthelimitationofasalvor’sliabilitiesinthelightoftheconsiderableincrease

inexposureduringmoderndaysalvageoperations.

After much discussion in many committees set up by Lloyd’s and the ISU, the principle of

the‘SafetyNet’wasdevised inpreference toaseparatefundof‘liabilitysalvage’ incasesof

environmentaldamageresultingfromtankercasualties.TheSafetyNetwasasubstantialmodi-

ficationofthetraditionalrequirementofsuccess:itcreateda‘no-cure-some-pay’guaranteethat

thesalvorwouldhaveatleasthiscostsmetwhere:

(a) thereissalvageofatankerladenorpartlyladenwithacargoofpotentiallypollutantoil;

and

(b) thesalvorisfreeofnegligence;and

�7� Generallyreferredtoas‘LOF’.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

§7-7 319lof safety net

Chapter 7.indd 319 4/20/06 1:00:57 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

(d) SubjecttothestatutoryprovisionsoftheSalvageConventionrelatingtoArt�4special

compensation,thesalvageservices‘shallberenderedandacceptedassalvageservices

upontheprincipleof“nocure–nopay”’.[Clause�(b)]

(e) Theshipownermayterminatethesalvageservices‘whenthereisnolongeranyreasonable

prospectofausefulresultleadingtoasalvagerewardinaccordancewithArt�3’.[Clause

4]

(f) ThesalvorshalldirectsecuritydemandsthroughtheCommitteeatLloyd’s,butdirectto

theshipownerwherepossible,andsecurity is then lodgedatLloyd’s.Thesalvorshall

haveamaritimelienonthesalvedpropertyuntilthen,butundertakesnottoarrestthe

vesselfor�4daysafterterminationofthesalvage,unlessithasreasontobelievethatthe

propertyistoberemovedincontraventionofhislien.[Clauses5and6]�74

(g) Theshipownerundertaketouseitsbestendeavourstoprocuretheagreementofcargo

intereststoprovidesecurityforcargo’spro ratashareofsalvage,andthesalvorsmaycall

forsecurityforspecialcompensationinadditiontonormalsalvage.[Clause5(b)]�75

(h) ThesalvageawardwillbefixedbyarbitrationinLondonundertheauspicesbutwithout

theactiveinvolvementoftheCommitteeofLloyd’s.

(i) Thecurrencyoftheawardmaybeagreed,failingwhichitshallbeinsterling.[Clause

�(e)and(f)]andthecontractisgovernedbyEnglishLaw‘includingtheEnglishlawof

salvage’.[Clause�(g)]

(j) Aninterimawardmaybemade.[Clause�0(a)(iv)]�76

(k) Arbitrationandappealproceduresarelaiddown.[Clauses7–�0]�77

Thereisnolongeranyspecificprovisionrelatingtotherightofthesalvortolimititsliabilityas

therewasinthe�980Lloyd’sOpenForm.Asthecontract issubject toEnglishlaw,andtobe

Thecommonlawsoughttoaccordthemasterthisauthoritybyamixedapplicationoftheories,includingnegotiorum gestor,agentofnecessityandstipulatio alteri. Seefurther§5–2.

�74 See§7-�0.

�75 PrevioustoThe Greystoke Castle[�947]AC265,shipownersusuallylodgedsecurityonbehalfofcargo.Fromthenon,shipownersbecameincreasinglyreluctanttodoso.

�76 ThisrightisentrenchedintheSalvageConvention,Art22.

�77 Seefurther§7-�0.

(c) theservicesarenotsuccessful,orareonlypartiallysuccessfulsothat thereisnofund

fromwhichthesalvormaybepaidanaward.

InthoselimitedcircumstancesthesalvorunderLOF�980couldclaimits‘reasonablyincurred

expenses’andanincrementofupto�5%.Clause�(a)whichintroducedthesafetynetexception

tothenocure–nopayprinciple,includedoutofpocketexpensesandafairrateforalltugs,craft,

personnelandotherequipmentusedbythesalvor.TheISUmakesitclearthatnoprofitisenvis-

aged,butawelldocumentedandvouchedcostsassessmentcansurelygivethesalvorsomeprofit

abovehisoverheadswhichareofcoursenot‘outofpocket’expenses.

The safety net compromise, which in turn paved the way for the �989 Convention’s special

compensation, came about largely through a compromise between hull & machinery and P&I

insurance.PropertysalvagewastraditionallypaidbyH&Mandcargounderwriters,andnotby

theP&IClubsasthevessels’thirdpartyassurers.Inexchangefortheagreementofhullandcargo

underwriterstocontinuetopaysalvage,andalsotomeetanyenhancementofpropertysalvage

awardsbyreasonofenvironmentaldamagebeingaverted,theInternationalGroupofP&IClubs

agreedtomeetthewholesafetynetbillandtoprovidesecuritytosalvorswheresafetynetservices

arerenderedtoP&Ienteredvessels.TheClubsthusincludedthesafetynetsalvageclaimunder

theirmembers’cover.�72

TheLOF�980hassincebeenupdatedbya�990anda�995Lloyd’sForm.Aspecimenisappended

asAppendix�0.Theprincipaltermsare

(a) Thesalvorshalluseitsbestendeavourstosalvageshipandcargoand(since�980)bunkers

andstores,andshallusehisbestendeavourstopreventtheescapeofoil.[Clause�(a)(i)]

(b) Thesalvedvesselshallco-operatefullywiththesalvorduringthesalvageandin‘obtain-

ingentryofthevesselintoaplaceofsafety’,andthesalvormayusegearonboardthe

salvedvessel.[Clause2]

(c) Themastersignsthecontractonbehalfoftheship,hercargo,freight,bunkersandstores.

[Clause�6]�73

�72 TheClubs,whorepresentanddefendmostoftheworld’sshipownersagainstalllegalliabilitiesincludingsalvage,alsoagreed,asdidhullandcargounderwriters,thattheywouldnotputupdefencesofsalvageclaimsbroughtunderLOF�980onthebasisthatthespeculativenatureofsalvagehadbeenreducedbytheguaranteeofatleastpartofthesalvor’scostsunderthesafetynetclause.

�73 ThispowertobindothersalvedintereststothecontractisreiteratedbyArt6(2)oftheSalvageConvention:

‘Themastershallhavetheauthoritytoconcludecontractsforsalvageoperationsonbehalfoftheownerofthevessel.Themasterortheownerofthevesselshallhavetheauthoritytoconcludesuchcontractsonbehalfoftheownerofthepropertyonboardthevessel.’

320 §7-7Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 320 4/20/06 1:00:57 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

(d) SubjecttothestatutoryprovisionsoftheSalvageConventionrelatingtoArt�4special

compensation,thesalvageservices‘shallberenderedandacceptedassalvageservices

upontheprincipleof“nocure–nopay”’.[Clause�(b)]

(e) Theshipownermayterminatethesalvageservices‘whenthereisnolongeranyreasonable

prospectofausefulresultleadingtoasalvagerewardinaccordancewithArt�3’.[Clause

4]

(f) ThesalvorshalldirectsecuritydemandsthroughtheCommitteeatLloyd’s,butdirectto

theshipownerwherepossible,andsecurity is then lodgedatLloyd’s.Thesalvorshall

haveamaritimelienonthesalvedpropertyuntilthen,butundertakesnottoarrestthe

vesselfor�4daysafterterminationofthesalvage,unlessithasreasontobelievethatthe

propertyistoberemovedincontraventionofhislien.[Clauses5and6]�74

(g) Theshipownerundertaketouseitsbestendeavourstoprocuretheagreementofcargo

intereststoprovidesecurityforcargo’spro ratashareofsalvage,andthesalvorsmaycall

forsecurityforspecialcompensationinadditiontonormalsalvage.[Clause5(b)]�75

(h) ThesalvageawardwillbefixedbyarbitrationinLondonundertheauspicesbutwithout

theactiveinvolvementoftheCommitteeofLloyd’s.

(i) Thecurrencyoftheawardmaybeagreed,failingwhichitshallbeinsterling.[Clause

�(e)and(f)]andthecontractisgovernedbyEnglishLaw‘includingtheEnglishlawof

salvage’.[Clause�(g)]

(j) Aninterimawardmaybemade.[Clause�0(a)(iv)]�76

(k) Arbitrationandappealproceduresarelaiddown.[Clauses7–�0]�77

Thereisnolongeranyspecificprovisionrelatingtotherightofthesalvortolimititsliabilityas

therewasinthe�980Lloyd’sOpenForm.Asthecontract issubject toEnglishlaw,andtobe

Thecommonlawsoughttoaccordthemasterthisauthoritybyamixedapplicationoftheories,includingnegotiorum gestor,agentofnecessityandstipulatio alteri. Seefurther§5–2.

�74 See§7-�0.

�75 PrevioustoThe Greystoke Castle[�947]AC265,shipownersusuallylodgedsecurityonbehalfofcargo.Fromthenon,shipownersbecameincreasinglyreluctanttodoso.

�76 ThisrightisentrenchedintheSalvageConvention,Art22.

�77 Seefurther§7-�0.

§7-8 3211989 convention

Chapter 7.indd 321 4/20/06 1:00:58 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

bygivingitacharactertoocloselyakintosalvage’.�79Butitisnotlimitedtosituationswhere

thesalvedfundisinsufficienttomeetanArt�4award.Itmaybethatthearbitratorhassimply

awarded‘normal’salvageunderArt�3whichdoesnotproperlycompensatethesalvorforitsArt

�4expenses.TheAttachmenttotheSalvageConventionremovesanydoubtthatitisnotnecessary

toexcusetheArt�3salvedfundbeforeArt�4specialcompensationisclaimed:

‘ItisthecommonunderstandingoftheConferencethat,infixingarewardunderArt-�3andassessingspecialcompensationunderArt-�4oftheInternationalConventiononSalvage,�989 the tribunal isundernoduty to fixa rewardunderArt-�3up to themaximumsalvedvalueofthevesselandotherpropertybeforeassessingthespecialcompensationtobepaidunderArt�4.

TheArt �4 special compensation award is payable only by the ship, and not by the cargo or

freight,evenwherethethreatofenvironmentaldamagederivessolelyfromthecargo.

TherighttoclaimspecialcompensationundertheSalvageConventionarisesonlywheretherehas

beena threatofdamage to theenvironment,which isdefined inArt2(d)as ‘substantialphysical

damagetohumanhealthortomarinelifeorresourcesincoastalorinlandwatersorareasadjacent

thereto,causedbypollution,contamination,fire,explosionorsimilarmajorincidents’.SouthAfrica,

inenactingitsWreckandSalvageActtowhichtheSalvageConventionisaschedule,recognised

thelimitationsofrestrictingsuchenvironmentaldamagetocoastalorinlandwaters,andthuspro-

claimedanextensionofthedefinitionofenvironmentaldamage,asitwouldapplyinSouthAfrican

enforcementproceedingsortosalvageoperationsorcontractstowhichSouthAfricanlawapplies,

asfollows:

‘Damage to the environmentasdefinedinarticle�oftheConventionshallforpur-posesofthisAct,notwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedinthisAct,notberestrictedtocoastalorinlandwatersortoareasadjacentthereto,butshallapplytoanyplacewheresuchdamagemayoccur.’�80

MindfulofthepreambleoftheSalvageConvention:

‘Thestatespartiestothepresentconvention,…Convincedoftheneedtoensurethatadequate incentives are available to persons who undertake salvage operations inrespectofvesselsandotherpropertyindanger’,

SouthAfricahasalsotakenapro-activerouteinenactingclarificationofthemeaningofa‘fair

rate’tobepaidtoasalvorintermsofArt�4(3).SincethecompromisewordingoftheSalvage

Conventionwasagreed,salvorshaveendeavouredtoincludeintheirassessmentof‘out-of-pocket

�79 The Nagasaki Spirit [�997]�Lloyd’sRep323(HL).

�80 WreckandSalvageAct,�996,s2(7).

enforcedinEngland,theEnglishlawoflimitationwhichincorporatestheprovisionsofthe�976

LimitationConventionwillhoweverapply.�78

§7-8 TheInternationalConventiononSalvage,1989–thenewregimeforsavingtheenvironment

TheLloyd’sForm‘safetynet’hasbeenreiteratedasthecurrentlawbythe‘specialcompensation’

providedforinArt�4oftheSalvageConvention:

‘(�) IfthesalvorhascarriedoutsalvageoperationsinrespectofavesselwhichbyitselforitscargothreateneddamagetotheenvironmentandhasfailedtoearnarewardunderArt�3atleastequivalenttothespecialcompensationassessableinaccordancewiththisarticle,heshallbeentitledtospecialcompensationfromtheownerofthatvesselequivalenttohisexpensesashereindefined.

(2) If, in the circumstances set out in paragraph (�), the salvor by his salvageoperationshaspreventedorminimizeddamagetotheenvironment,thespecialcompensationpayablebytheownertothesalvorunderparagraph(�)maybeincreased up to a maximum of 30% of the expenses incurred by the salvor.However,thetribunal,ifitdeemsitfairandjusttodosoandbearinginmindtherelevantcriteriasetoutinarticle�3,paragraph(�),mayincreasesuchspe-cialcompensationfurther,butinnoeventshallthetotalincreasebemorethan�00%oftheexpensesincurredbythesalvor.

(3) Salvor’s expenses for the purpose of paragraphs (�) and (2) means the out-of-pocketexpensesreasonablyincurredbythesalvorinthesalvageoperationandafairrateforequipmentandpersonnelactuallyandreasonablyusedinthesalvage operation, taking into consideration the criteria set out in article �3,paragraph�(h),(i)and(j).

(4) Thetotalspecialcompensationunderthisarticleshallbepaidonlyifandtotheextent that such compensation is greater than any reward recoverable by thesalvorunderArt�3.

(5) Ifthesalvorhasbeennegligentandhastherebyfailedtopreventorminimisedamagetotheenvironment,hemaybedeprivedof thewholeorpartofanyspecialcompensationdueunderthisarticle.

(6) Nothinginthisarticleshalleffectanyrightofrecourseonthepartoftheownerofthevessel.’

SpecialcompensationunderArt�4mayonlybeclaimedwherethesalvor‘hasfailedtoearna

rewardunderArt�3atleastequivalentto’thespecialcompensationthesalvorstandstoreceive

underArt �4. It is ‘subordinate to theArt �3 reward and its function should not be confused

�78 UnderEnglishlawthesalvormaylimititsliabilityaccordingtothe�976ConventionontheLimitationofLiabliityforMaritimeClaims.Seefurther§��-�.2

322 §7-8Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 322 4/20/06 1:00:58 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

bygivingitacharactertoocloselyakintosalvage’.�79Butitisnotlimitedtosituationswhere

thesalvedfundisinsufficienttomeetanArt�4award.Itmaybethatthearbitratorhassimply

awarded‘normal’salvageunderArt�3whichdoesnotproperlycompensatethesalvorforitsArt

�4expenses.TheAttachmenttotheSalvageConventionremovesanydoubtthatitisnotnecessary

toexcusetheArt�3salvedfundbeforeArt�4specialcompensationisclaimed:

‘ItisthecommonunderstandingoftheConferencethat,infixingarewardunderArt-�3andassessingspecialcompensationunderArt-�4oftheInternationalConventiononSalvage,�989 the tribunal isundernoduty to fixa rewardunderArt-�3up to themaximumsalvedvalueofthevesselandotherpropertybeforeassessingthespecialcompensationtobepaidunderArt�4.

TheArt �4 special compensation award is payable only by the ship, and not by the cargo or

freight,evenwherethethreatofenvironmentaldamagederivessolelyfromthecargo.

TherighttoclaimspecialcompensationundertheSalvageConventionarisesonlywheretherehas

beena threatofdamage to theenvironment,which isdefined inArt2(d)as ‘substantialphysical

damagetohumanhealthortomarinelifeorresourcesincoastalorinlandwatersorareasadjacent

thereto,causedbypollution,contamination,fire,explosionorsimilarmajorincidents’.SouthAfrica,

inenactingitsWreckandSalvageActtowhichtheSalvageConventionisaschedule,recognised

thelimitationsofrestrictingsuchenvironmentaldamagetocoastalorinlandwaters,andthuspro-

claimedanextensionofthedefinitionofenvironmentaldamage,asitwouldapplyinSouthAfrican

enforcementproceedingsortosalvageoperationsorcontractstowhichSouthAfricanlawapplies,

asfollows:

‘Damage to the environmentasdefinedinarticle�oftheConventionshallforpur-posesofthisAct,notwithstandinganythingtothecontrarycontainedinthisAct,notberestrictedtocoastalorinlandwatersortoareasadjacentthereto,butshallapplytoanyplacewheresuchdamagemayoccur.’�80

MindfulofthepreambleoftheSalvageConvention:

‘Thestatespartiestothepresentconvention,…Convincedoftheneedtoensurethatadequate incentives are available to persons who undertake salvage operations inrespectofvesselsandotherpropertyindanger’,

SouthAfricahasalsotakenapro-activerouteinenactingclarificationofthemeaningofa‘fair

rate’tobepaidtoasalvorintermsofArt�4(3).SincethecompromisewordingoftheSalvage

Conventionwasagreed,salvorshaveendeavouredtoincludeintheirassessmentof‘out-of-pocket

�79 The Nagasaki Spirit [�997]�Lloyd’sRep323(HL).

�80 WreckandSalvageAct,�996,s2(7).

§7-8 3231989 convention

Chapter 7.indd 323 4/20/06 1:00:58 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

dosohaslauncheditsSalvage 2000initiative.�82Salvage 2000isunderpinnedbyaprioragreement

betweentheISUandP&IClubssettlingpre-determinedmarketratesofremunerationforArt�4com-

pensation,andenvisagestheuseofanallongetoaLloydsOpenFormagreementtogiveeffecttothe

changedmethodsofArt�4assessmentandapplication.�83Thesalvorwouldbeable,unilaterally,to

invokeamarketrelatedformulaofArt�4compensationatanystageoftheoperation.TheP&IClubs,

inreturn,wouldhaveagreatersayintheconductofthesalvage.TogiveeffecttoSalvage 2000,the

P&IClubshavesponsoredwhatisknownasthe‘SCOPIC’clauseforLloydsOpenForm.�84Thefinal

formofSCOPICremainstobesettled,butitsproposedcontentissummarisedthus:�85

SCOPICmaybeincorporatedintoaLloyd’sOpenFormcontractbyagreement

betweentheparties.Itisnotintendedtobecompulsory;

TheprovisionsofSCOPICwillbeacceptabletotheInternationalGroupofP&IClubs,

whowillagreetoacodeofconductgivingClubbackingtoitsproposals;

SCOPICdoesnotdoawaywithSpecialCompensation,butmerelyreplacesitsmethod

ofassessment;

SCOPICremunerationmaybeinvokedatanytimeduringasalvageoperationbythe

salvor;

AssoonasSCOPICisinvoked,theshipowermustprovideaguaranteefor$3million

within2workingdays;

SCOPICremunerationwillbeassessedaccordingtotariffrates;

IfSCOPICremunerationisexceededbytheArt�3propertysalvageremuneration,the

Art�3awardwillbediscountedby25%ofthedifferencebetweentheArt�3award

andtheSCOPICassessment;

�82 TheviewoftheISUisthat‘theworldplacesprotectionoftheenvironmentatalevelfarabovepropertysalvage’,andsalvageawardsshouldreflectthischangedvaluesystem.SeeWitteSalvage 2000: New Options for Contracting Salvage Services,anISUpositionpaperpresentedtothe�5thInternationalTugandSalvageConvention,November�998.

�83 TheproposalsincludetheextensionofArt�4remunerationtobeyondcoastalwaters,suchastheSouthAfricanWreckandSalvageActhasalreadydone.MrWitte,asthecurrentpresidentoftheISU,callsforanintegrationbetweenshipownersandsalvorsnoting:

‘Thereisnoroomfortheyellowpage,itinerantsalvor,whocomesonthescenewithhisbrother-in-law,twooff-dutyfiremenandthelowestprice.Thesocial,politicalandeconomiccostofdelaycoupledwithpoorjudgmentisjusttoogreatforatrialanderrorapproachbyinexperiencedentrepreneursluredbyahighriskrewardatpotentialenvironmentalexpense.’

�84 SpecialCompensationP&IClause.

�85 FromthepaperdeliveredbyArchieBishop,legaladvisortotheISU,atthe�5thInternationalTugandSalvageConvention,November�998.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

expensesreasonablyincurredbythesalvorinthesalvageoperationandafairrateforequipment

andpersonnelactuallyandreasonablyusedinthesalvageoperation’anelementofprofit.They

havemaintained that a fair rate for equipment andpersonnel shouldperforcebeonewhich is

marketrelated,andwhichaccordinglyreflectsreasonableprofit.

In The Nagasaki Spirit,�8� theowners of thevessel challenged the salvor’s inclusionof profit

in theirclaimforspecialcompensation.TheNagasaki Spirit,95997tonsdwt, hadbeenbadly

damaged inacollisionwith theOcean Blessing in theMalaccaStraits,withgreat lossof life.

TheNagasaki Spirit spilledabout�2000tonnesofcrudeoilintheaccident,butthevesseland

theremainingcargoweresaved.TheOcean Blessing,withallhercrew,werelost. Thesalvorsof

theNagasaki Spirit claimedbothArt�3andArt�4salvage.Thearbitratorfoundforthesalvors

andawardedthemanArt�4rewardwhichincludedprofitaspartofa‘fairrate’forpersonnel

andequipmentusedintheoilpollutionpreventionoperation.Theappealarbitratorregardedthe

specialcompensationonlyasasafetynet,andnotasaseparatetypeofsalvageremuneration,and

theCommercialCourtand theCourtofAppealgenerallyupheld theappealarbitrator, exclud-

ingprofit.ThisviewwasconfirmedbytheHouseofLords.Inhisjudgment,LordMustillQC

found:

‘Idonotaccept thatsalvorsneedaprofitelementasafurther incentive.Under theformerregimetheundertakingofsalvageserviceswasastarkgamble.Nocure–nopay. This is no longer so, since even if traditional salvage yields little or nothingunderArticle�3thesalvorwill,intheeventofsuccessinprotectingtheenvironmentbeawardedamultiplenotonlyofhisdirectcostsbutalsotheindirectstandbycosts,yieldingaprofit.Moreover,evenifthereisnoenvironmentalbenefitheisassuredofanindemnityagainsthisoutlaysandreceivesatleastsomecontributiontohisstandingcosts.Lackofsuccessnolongermeans“nopay”andtheprovisionofthissafetynetdoessuffice…tofulfilthepurposesofthenewscheme.’

The House of Lords shied away from providing a clear formula for the calculation of a ‘fair

rate’. That will be left to the arbitrators and the courts. However salvage claims enforced in

SouthAfrica,orelsewhereaccordingtoSouthAfricanlaw,willpreferthefindingsoftheoriginal

arbitratorinThe Nagasaki Spirit,andwillallowthesalvortoclaimafairrateforpersonneland

equipmentchargedoutat‘prevailingmarketrates…forworkofasimilarnature’.

TheInternationalSalvageUnionisnotsatisfiedwiththewayinwhichArt�4hasbeenappliedby

thecourts,andwereclearlyunhappywiththeHouseofLords’interpretationofa‘fairrate’inThe

Nagasaki Spirit.TheISUcontinuestolobbyforagreaterfocusonenvironmentalsalvage,andto

�8� The Nagasaki Spirit, supra.

324 §7-8Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 324 4/20/06 1:00:59 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

dosohaslauncheditsSalvage 2000initiative.�82Salvage 2000isunderpinnedbyaprioragreement

betweentheISUandP&IClubssettlingpre-determinedmarketratesofremunerationforArt�4com-

pensation,andenvisagestheuseofanallongetoaLloydsOpenFormagreementtogiveeffecttothe

changedmethodsofArt�4assessmentandapplication.�83Thesalvorwouldbeable,unilaterally,to

invokeamarketrelatedformulaofArt�4compensationatanystageoftheoperation.TheP&IClubs,

inreturn,wouldhaveagreatersayintheconductofthesalvage.TogiveeffecttoSalvage 2000,the

P&IClubshavesponsoredwhatisknownasthe‘SCOPIC’clauseforLloydsOpenForm.�84Thefinal

formofSCOPICremainstobesettled,butitsproposedcontentissummarisedthus:�85

SCOPICmaybeincorporatedintoaLloyd’sOpenFormcontractbyagreement

betweentheparties.Itisnotintendedtobecompulsory;

TheprovisionsofSCOPICwillbeacceptabletotheInternationalGroupofP&IClubs,

whowillagreetoacodeofconductgivingClubbackingtoitsproposals;

SCOPICdoesnotdoawaywithSpecialCompensation,butmerelyreplacesitsmethod

ofassessment;

SCOPICremunerationmaybeinvokedatanytimeduringasalvageoperationbythe

salvor;

AssoonasSCOPICisinvoked,theshipowermustprovideaguaranteefor$3million

within2workingdays;

SCOPICremunerationwillbeassessedaccordingtotariffrates;

IfSCOPICremunerationisexceededbytheArt�3propertysalvageremuneration,the

Art�3awardwillbediscountedby25%ofthedifferencebetweentheArt�3award

andtheSCOPICassessment;

�82 TheviewoftheISUisthat‘theworldplacesprotectionoftheenvironmentatalevelfarabovepropertysalvage’,andsalvageawardsshouldreflectthischangedvaluesystem.SeeWitteSalvage 2000: New Options for Contracting Salvage Services,anISUpositionpaperpresentedtothe�5thInternationalTugandSalvageConvention,November�998.

�83 TheproposalsincludetheextensionofArt�4remunerationtobeyondcoastalwaters,suchastheSouthAfricanWreckandSalvageActhasalreadydone.MrWitte,asthecurrentpresidentoftheISU,callsforanintegrationbetweenshipownersandsalvorsnoting:

‘Thereisnoroomfortheyellowpage,itinerantsalvor,whocomesonthescenewithhisbrother-in-law,twooff-dutyfiremenandthelowestprice.Thesocial,politicalandeconomiccostofdelaycoupledwithpoorjudgmentisjusttoogreatforatrialanderrorapproachbyinexperiencedentrepreneursluredbyahighriskrewardatpotentialenvironmentalexpense.’

�84 SpecialCompensationP&IClause.

�85 FromthepaperdeliveredbyArchieBishop,legaladvisortotheISU,atthe�5thInternationalTugandSalvageConvention,November�998.

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

§7-9 325salvage claims

Chapter 7.indd 325 4/20/06 1:00:59 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

throughtheinspectionanddiscoveryproceduresoftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.�89

Taperecordingsofradiocommunicationsbetweenthesalvorandthesalvedvessel,and,where

legally available, communications between ship and shore, can throw valuable light on both

predicamentandsalvageservice.Statementsfromthecrewofthesalvedvessel,counteredby

statementsfromthoseonboardthesalvedvesselmaybesubmitted.Officerecordsandfinancial

statements, including fixed and variable costs and depreciation, would be needed to support

claimsforspecialcompensationandfornormalArt�3rewards,fortheexpensesofthesalvorin

performingtheoperationareacriterionwhichtheSalvageConventionrequiresthearbitratorto

takeintoaccount.Andnotleast,intheabsenceofagreement,valuesofship,cargoandfreight

wouldhavetobeproved,�90basingthesevaluesonthemarketvalueofthepropertysavedatthe

completionofthesalvageoperation,andnotcleanandundamagedasitwasbeforetheaccident

givingrisetothesalvageoccurred.

Lloyd’sarbitratorscommonlycallthepartiestogethertosubmittheirpresentationsthroughtheir

legalrepresentatives.TheCommitteeatLloyd’spublishes‘ProceduralRules’whichgivepractice

directions for the conduct of salvage arbitrations.�9� The Rules provide for a meeting to be

convenedbythearbitratorwithinsixweeksofappointment,toarrangetimelimitsforthesubmis-

sionofevidence,fordiscovery,forproofofvalues,andadateforthehearing.Althoughthearbi-

tratorhasthepowertocallforandhearevidenceviva voce(apowerwhichwouldbeentrenched

inSouthAfricanproceedingsbytheAdmiraltyJurisdictionAct),�92thisseldomoccurs,andmost

salvagearbitrationsareconductedonthepapersandthesubmissionsofcounselinargument.

Itispossiblethatsalvorspresentajointsalvageclaim,allowingthecourtorarbitratortoapportion

theawardbetweenthem.Whereacourtawardedsalvagetoowners,masterandcrewcollectively,

butthemasterandcrewwerenotbeforethecourt,thecourtdeclinedtoapportiontheaggregate

award.�93Thereisnosetformulaforthedivisionofasalvageawardamongtheownersofthesal-

vagingvessel,hermasterandhercrew.Butwhereowner’scontributiontothesalvageisminimal,


�90 Forwhichdocumentswouldneedtobedisclosed:Messina Bros Coles and Searle v Hansen & Scroeder Ltd�9��CPD78�.

�9� TheissueoftheLloyd’sProceduralRulesisdatedFebruary�997andisappendedasAppendix��.

�92 Section5(5)(a)(i)oftheActreads:

‘Ifitappearstothecourttobenecessaryordesirableforthepurposeofdetermininganymaritimeclaim,oranydefencetoanysuchclaim,whichhasbeenormaybebroughtbeforeacourt,arbitratororrefereeintheRepublic,makeanorderfortheexamination,testingorinspectionbyanypersonofanyship,cargo,documentsoranyotherthinkandforthetakingofevidenceofanyperson.’

TheAct,inss(iv),allowssuchanordertobegrantedalsoinrelationtoclaimsbroughttocourtorarbitrationelsewherethaninSouthAfrica,butonlyin‘exceptionalcircumstances’.

�93 The Mangoro�9�3WLD60at67.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

AssoonasSCOPICisinvoked,theshipownercanappointaSpecialCasualty

Representative(SCR)tomonitorthesalvageservicesandbekeptfullyadvisedasto

howtheoperationistobecarriedout;

OncetheSCOPICclausehasbeeninvoked,theLOFcanbeterminatedeitherbythe

salvoriftheoverallcosttohim,lessanySCOPICremuneration,isgreaterthanthe

valueofthepropertysaved,orbytheshipowneraftergiving5daysnoticetothesalvor.

ItwouldappearlikelythattheshortcomingsoftheSalvageConventionwillbeaddressedatthis

stageconsensuallybytheparties,ratherthanbyamendment.Thenextstepofthesalvortowards

itslong-standinggoaloftherecognitionofenvironmentalandliabilitysalvageasacauseforan

awardinitsownrightisthuslikelytobeLOF�995,coupledtoaSCOPICagreement.

§7-9 Submissionandpreparationofsalvageclaims

Asalvageclaimstandsorfallsontheavailabilityandpresentationoffact.Itisusuallysubmittedby

meansofa‘bundle’ofdocumentssubmittedtoanarbitrator,whichbundleinturnelicitsabundle

ofdocumentsandsubmissionsinreplyfromtheshipowner.Clearly,thesalvorseekstomaximise

thedanger and the effort expended,while the shipowner rebutsbydenying that thedangerwas

immediateorindeedreal,andaverringthatthesalvor’seffortswereroutine.Thearbitratorseeksa

balance.

Inreality,whereclaimsaresubmittedtoarbitrationbyaLloyd’sArbitrator,histrionicsoneither

sidearetolittleavail.Anexperiencedarbitrator(anditisherethatarbitrationbecomespreferable

tocourtproceedings)willsiftandseethroughanyoverlydramaticpresentations.Butthenatureof

manysalvageoperationshasnotchangedsincethedaysofthe‘heriocsalvageservices’recounted

intheDoctor’sCommonsassovividlydescribedbyRoscoe.�86It isoftendifficultnottoplay

ontherealitiesofthedramaandtheextentofthecatastrophe.Trueheriocsisthestuffofwhich

successfulsalvageclaimsaremade.

Inpreparingasalvagebundle, thesalvorwouldseekcontemporaneousevidenceofthenature

of the vessel and her cargo, and the predicament from which she was extricated. Accurate

weatherrecords,seastaterecords,�87andinshorechartdata�88areinvaluable.Photographsand

videofootagetakenduringthesalvageoperationspeakvolumes.InSouthAfricanproceedings,

whetherbycourtactionorbyarbitration,maintenancerecordsofthesalvedvesselmaybesought

�86 SeeChapter�,§�04fn62.

�87 InSouthAfrica,availablefromtheCSIR.

�88 AvailablefromtheOfficeoftheHydrographeroftheSouthAfricanNavyatSilvermineinCapeTown.

◆

◆

326 §7-10Salvage

Chapter 7.indd 326 4/20/06 1:01:00 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

throughtheinspectionanddiscoveryproceduresoftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.�89

Taperecordingsofradiocommunicationsbetweenthesalvorandthesalvedvessel,and,where

legally available, communications between ship and shore, can throw valuable light on both

predicamentandsalvageservice.Statementsfromthecrewofthesalvedvessel,counteredby

statementsfromthoseonboardthesalvedvesselmaybesubmitted.Officerecordsandfinancial

statements, including fixed and variable costs and depreciation, would be needed to support

claimsforspecialcompensationandfornormalArt�3rewards,fortheexpensesofthesalvorin

performingtheoperationareacriterionwhichtheSalvageConventionrequiresthearbitratorto

takeintoaccount.Andnotleast,intheabsenceofagreement,valuesofship,cargoandfreight

wouldhavetobeproved,�90basingthesevaluesonthemarketvalueofthepropertysavedatthe

completionofthesalvageoperation,andnotcleanandundamagedasitwasbeforetheaccident

givingrisetothesalvageoccurred.

Lloyd’sarbitratorscommonlycallthepartiestogethertosubmittheirpresentationsthroughtheir

legalrepresentatives.TheCommitteeatLloyd’spublishes‘ProceduralRules’whichgivepractice

directions for the conduct of salvage arbitrations.�9� The Rules provide for a meeting to be

convenedbythearbitratorwithinsixweeksofappointment,toarrangetimelimitsforthesubmis-

sionofevidence,fordiscovery,forproofofvalues,andadateforthehearing.Althoughthearbi-

tratorhasthepowertocallforandhearevidenceviva voce(apowerwhichwouldbeentrenched

inSouthAfricanproceedingsbytheAdmiraltyJurisdictionAct),�92thisseldomoccurs,andmost

salvagearbitrationsareconductedonthepapersandthesubmissionsofcounselinargument.

Itispossiblethatsalvorspresentajointsalvageclaim,allowingthecourtorarbitratortoapportion

theawardbetweenthem.Whereacourtawardedsalvagetoowners,masterandcrewcollectively,

butthemasterandcrewwerenotbeforethecourt,thecourtdeclinedtoapportiontheaggregate

award.�93Thereisnosetformulaforthedivisionofasalvageawardamongtheownersofthesal-

vagingvessel,hermasterandhercrew.Butwhereowner’scontributiontothesalvageisminimal,


�90 Forwhichdocumentswouldneedtobedisclosed:Messina Bros Coles and Searle v Hansen & Scroeder Ltd�9��CPD78�.

�9� TheissueoftheLloyd’sProceduralRulesisdatedFebruary�997andisappendedasAppendix��.

�92 Section5(5)(a)(i)oftheActreads:

‘Ifitappearstothecourttobenecessaryordesirableforthepurposeofdetermininganymaritimeclaim,oranydefencetoanysuchclaim,whichhasbeenormaybebroughtbeforeacourt,arbitratororrefereeintheRepublic,makeanorderfortheexamination,testingorinspectionbyanypersonofanyship,cargo,documentsoranyotherthinkandforthetakingofevidenceofanyperson.’

TheAct,inss(iv),allowssuchanordertobegrantedalsoinrelationtoclaimsbroughttocourtorarbitrationelsewherethaninSouthAfrica,butonlyin‘exceptionalcircumstances’.

�93 The Mangoro�9�3WLD60at67.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

§7-10 327salvage

Chapter 7.indd 327 4/20/06 1:01:00 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

328 §7-1Salvage

thiswillbetakenintoaccount,andtheirpartoftheclaimwillbecomparativelysmall.�94Where

atugownerwaspreventedfromconvertingatowagecontracttosalvagebecausethetugsupplied

fortheservicewas‘inefficient’,themasterandcrewofthetugwereallowedtosevertheirclaims

andwereawardedsalvage,thoughtheirowner’sclaimforsalvagewasdenied.�95Acourtmayalso

orderthatrelatedsalvageclaimsbeconsolidatedintoasingleaction.�96

Whereoneshipsalvagesasistership,andbothbelongtothesameowners,themasterandcrewofthe

salvagingshipmayclaimsalvageagainstthesalvedship,providedthattheiractionsgobeyondwhat

couldhavebeenexpectedofthemundertheirconditionsofservice.�97Clearlynoclaimwouldsubsist

forowner’sshareofsalvage.Amasterandcrewarenotentitledtoclaimsalvageoftheirownvessel:

‘Itisquiteclearthat,asageneralrule,seamancannotrecoversalvageremunerationforserviceswhichbytheircontract theyareboundtoperform,and, therefore, theynever recover salvage remuneration for services connectedwith the savingof theirownship,aslongastherelationofmasterandservantsbetweenthemandtheirowner,withreferencetothatship,continues.’�98

§7-10 Enforcement,Security,ArbitrationandAppeal�99

Asalvageclaimisonegivingrisetoamaritimelien.ThislienisconfirmedbothintheWreck

andSalvageAct,s2(�0)ofwhichconfirmsthat‘anyclaimantunderthisActshallbeentitledto

enforceamaritimelien’,andbytheSalvageConventionwhichconfirmsinArt20:

‘(�) Nothing in this Convention shall affect the salvor’s maritime lien under anyinternationalconventionornationallaw.

�94 SeeThe Jane(�83�)�66ER267perSirChristopherRobinson:

‘Astotheowners,whoareprincipalpartiesintheseproceedings,thegeneralprincipleoflawis,thattheclaimofownersgenerallyisveryslight,unless,fromthecircumstancesofthecase,theirpropertybecomesexposedtodanger,ortheyincursomereallossorinconvenience.Therewasnodangertotheirpropertyinthiscase;butinthedetentionoftheirvessel,andconsequentialriskandexpenses,Ithinkthereisastrongfoundationontheirpartforaclaimtoshareinthesalvage.’

�95 The Maréchal Suchet[�9��]P�.

�96 Foranearlycaseofapportionmentbetweensalvors,seeThe L’Esperance(�8��)�65ER�227.AjointsalvageclaimwaspresentedintheLloyd’sFormarbitrationofthesalvageofthesistertankersVenoilandVenpet.ConsolidationwasorderedinThe Andes(�90�)��CTR367andinThe Politician and The Cromartyshire (�902)�9SC�47inwhicharunnercrewandatugasjointsalvorssavedaburningvessel.[Caveats6oftheAdmiraltyJurisdictionRegulationAct.]

�97 The Sappho(�87�)�7ER238inwhichtheHouseofLordsupheldsuchanawardmadebySirRobertPhillimore,anddistinguishedtheearlierjudgmentofDrLushingtoninThe Marie Jane�4Jur857,whichdisallowedaclaimuponthebasisofthecustomthatmastersandcrewsofshipsontheAfricantradebelongingtothesameownerwereexpectedintheirarticlesofemployment,torenderassistancetoeachother.Thus,inThe Marie Jane, theirservicesdidnotgobeyondthoseforwhichtheyhadbeenemployed,andtherewasnosalvage.

�98 The Sappho(�87�)�7ER238at240.

�99 Seegenerally,GriggsArbitration Procedures LOFInternationalBusinessLawyer(�98�)at�5-�7.

(2) Thesalvormaynotenforcehismaritimelienwhensatisfactorysecurityforhisclaim,includinginterestandcosts,hasbeendulytenderedorprovided.’

TheConventiondealsinsomedetailwiththeprovisionofsecuritybytheshipownertothesalvor.

Article2�providesthat:

‘(�) Upon the request of the salvor a person liable for a payment due under thisConventionshallprovidesatisfactorysecurityfortheclaim,includinginterestandcostsofthesalvor.

(2) Withoutprejudicetoparagraph(�),theownerofthesalvedvesselshallusehisbestendeavourstoensurethattheownersofthecargoprovidesatisfactorysecurityfortheclaimsagainstthemincludinginterestandcostsbeforethecargoisreleased.

(3) Thesalvedvesselandotherpropertyshallnot,withouttheconsentofthesalvor,beremovedfromtheportorplaceatwhichtheyfirstarriveafterthecomple-tionofthesalvageoperationsuntilsatisfactorysecurityhasbeenputupforthesalvor’sclaimagainsttherelevantvesselorproperty.

The�995Lloyd’sOpenFormhasspecificprovisionsastotheprovisionofsecurity,whichboth

overlap those of the Salvage Convention, and which, in cases of conflict would override the

Convention.200Clause5of theLloyd’sOpenForm requires the salvor to notify theowners of

theamountof securitydemanded ‘immediatelyafter the terminationof theservicesor sooner’.

Security for special compensation may be called from up to two years of the termination of

services,becauseitmayonlybecomeapparenttoasalvoratamuchlaterstagethandeliveryofthe

salvedvesseltoaplaceofsafetythatthesalvedfundisinsufficienttomeetitsclaim.Theamount

ofsecuritydemandedisrequiredtobereasonable,inthelightoftheknowledgeavailabletothe

salvoratthetimethedemandismade.Disputesoverthequantumofsecurityarereferredtothe

arbitrator,anduntilsecurityisposted,thesalvorhasamaritimelienoverthepropertysalvaged.The

salvorundertakeshowever,thatitwillnotenforceitslienuntil�4daysaftertheterminationofthe

services,or‘ifhehasreasontobelievethattheremovalofthepropertyiscontemplated’.

ALloyd’sarbitrator’sawardmaybetakenonappeal,andthedecisionoftheappealarbitratoris

subject,inEnglishlaw,toreviewbytheCommercialCourt,andthereaftermaypassthroughthe

judicialsystemtotheHouseofLords.

The time bar for salvage actions is two years from the date on which the salvage services are

terminated.20�

200 TheSalvageConventionprovidesinArt6(�)thattheConvention‘shallapplytoanysalvageoperationssavetotheextentthatacontractotherwiseprovidesexpresslyorbyimplication’.

20� SalvageConventionArt23

Chapter 7.indd 328 4/20/06 1:01:01 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

§7-1 329salvage

(2) Thesalvormaynotenforcehismaritimelienwhensatisfactorysecurityforhisclaim,includinginterestandcosts,hasbeendulytenderedorprovided.’

TheConventiondealsinsomedetailwiththeprovisionofsecuritybytheshipownertothesalvor.

Article2�providesthat:

‘(�) Upon the request of the salvor a person liable for a payment due under thisConventionshallprovidesatisfactorysecurityfortheclaim,includinginterestandcostsofthesalvor.

(2) Withoutprejudicetoparagraph(�),theownerofthesalvedvesselshallusehisbestendeavourstoensurethattheownersofthecargoprovidesatisfactorysecurityfortheclaimsagainstthemincludinginterestandcostsbeforethecargoisreleased.

(3) Thesalvedvesselandotherpropertyshallnot,withouttheconsentofthesalvor,beremovedfromtheportorplaceatwhichtheyfirstarriveafterthecomple-tionofthesalvageoperationsuntilsatisfactorysecurityhasbeenputupforthesalvor’sclaimagainsttherelevantvesselorproperty.

The�995Lloyd’sOpenFormhasspecificprovisionsastotheprovisionofsecurity,whichboth

overlap those of the Salvage Convention, and which, in cases of conflict would override the

Convention.200Clause5of theLloyd’sOpenForm requires the salvor to notify theowners of

theamountof securitydemanded ‘immediatelyafter the terminationof theservicesor sooner’.

Security for special compensation may be called from up to two years of the termination of

services,becauseitmayonlybecomeapparenttoasalvoratamuchlaterstagethandeliveryofthe

salvedvesseltoaplaceofsafetythatthesalvedfundisinsufficienttomeetitsclaim.Theamount

ofsecuritydemandedisrequiredtobereasonable,inthelightoftheknowledgeavailabletothe

salvoratthetimethedemandismade.Disputesoverthequantumofsecurityarereferredtothe

arbitrator,anduntilsecurityisposted,thesalvorhasamaritimelienoverthepropertysalvaged.The

salvorundertakeshowever,thatitwillnotenforceitslienuntil�4daysaftertheterminationofthe

services,or‘ifhehasreasontobelievethattheremovalofthepropertyiscontemplated’.

ALloyd’sarbitrator’sawardmaybetakenonappeal,andthedecisionoftheappealarbitratoris

subject,inEnglishlaw,toreviewbytheCommercialCourt,andthereaftermaypassthroughthe

judicialsystemtotheHouseofLords.

The time bar for salvage actions is two years from the date on which the salvage services are

terminated.20�

200 TheSalvageConventionprovidesinArt6(�)thattheConvention‘shallapplytoanysalvageoperationssavetotheextentthatacontractotherwiseprovidesexpresslyorbyimplication’.

20� SalvageConventionArt23

Chapter 7.indd 329 4/20/06 1:01:01 PM

For pri

vate

use o

f IFLO

S stud

ents

- © JE

Hare

Chapter 7: Salvage

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 7: Salvage