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.
6 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
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.
6 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 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.
§7-3 Generalprinciplesofsalvagelaw:equityandpublicpolicy
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.
§7-3 Generalprinciplesofsalvagelaw:equityandpublicpolicy
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.
§7-4.1.1 295essential elements
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.]
§7-4.1.2 297essential elements
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.
§7-4.1.3 299essential elements
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.
§7-4.2.1 301essential elements
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.
§7-4.3.1 303essential elements
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).
◆
◆
§7-4.3.2 305essential elements
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�.
§7-4.4.1 307essential elements
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
�46 Uponwhichsee§7-8.
§7-4.4.3 309essential elements
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,
�89 Uponwhichsee§2-7.
�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,
�89 Uponwhichsee§2-7.
�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