Maridive VII, Maridive XIII, Maridive 85 and Maridive 94, Owners, Masters and Crews of the tugs v Key Singapore, Owners and Demise Charterers of the oil rig

Under article 18 of the Salvage Convention, where salvage operations became necessary or more difficult through fault on both sides, relative responsibility is assessed by comparing the causative potency and blameworthiness of each party’s fault. Overall control of a tow is relevant to identifying duties and potential fault. It does not, as a matter of law, make the party in control more blameworthy whenever both parties have failed to take reasonable care. The assessment remains fact-sensitive.

The claimants’ tugs rendered services to the jack-up rig Key Singapore during a hazardous tow. The original arbitrator treated the services as salvage and reduced the award to reflect the claimants’ contribution to the danger. The appeal arbitrator altered the valuation and apportioned responsibility differently, treating the rig and tugs as equally at fault for failing to heave to in time.

The claimants appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, arguing that the appeal arbitrator had failed to apply established law concerning the relative responsibilities of tug and tow. The central issue was whether overall command legally required the rig to bear the greater share of responsibility.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal arbitrator had not erred in law by departing from the original arbitrator’s apportionment.
2. Article 18 of the Salvage Convention requires comparative assessment where salvage operations became necessary or more difficult through fault on both sides. Relative responsibility is assessed by reference to the causative potency and blameworthiness of the respective faults.
3. The authorities established that the tow may have overall control and that the tug may have duties to obey and warn. They did not establish that overall control automatically makes the party exercising it more at fault when both tug and tow have breached their duties.
4. The assessment is fact-sensitive. The tug masters’ expertise in preserving the integrity of tow lines could be relevant to comparative responsibility.
5. The appeal failed on its primary ground, and the consequential issues did not arise.

The judgment records an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 against an appeal arbitrator’s award, which had varied the original arbitrator’s award. Leave to appeal was granted by Gross J. The High Court dismissed the appeal.