Sea Tractor, Owners of the Tug & Ors v Tramp, Owners of the Ship

Whether services constitute salvage is determined objectively. The vessel must be in a situation exposing it to damage if assistance is withheld. The relevant question is whether a reasonable person in charge of the venture would refuse the offered assistance on the condition that a salvage award was payable. A vessel may be in sufficient danger even though it is not aground, where its manoeuvring ability is significantly impeded and the available alternatives involve material financial or physical risks. A short and straightforward service may nevertheless justify a substantial, encouraging award where it promptly removes the vessel from modest danger.

The owners, master, officers and crew of the tug Sea Tractor claimed salvage remuneration for services rendered to the vessel Tramp in the River Swale on 21 March 2006. Tramp had left an unfendered berth without a tug in strong wind and became unable to turn towards seaward. After repeated unsuccessful manoeuvres, tug assistance was requested. Sea Tractor arrived promptly, took a ship’s line and brought Tramp’s bow round within several minutes.

The defendants contended that the service was ordinary towage, remunerable under the tug’s tariff at £625. The central issues were whether Tramp was in sufficient danger to found a salvage claim and, if so, the appropriate award.

1. Salvage danger. The test was essentially objective. The vessel had to be in a situation exposing it to damage if the service was not rendered, such that no reasonable person in charge of the venture would refuse the offered assistance on salvage terms. The master’s view was persuasive but not determinative (para [19]).
2. Factual application. Tramp was not shown to be aground. Nevertheless, she had been set towards the western edge of the channel and was significantly impeded in her ability to manoeuvre. In practical terms she was immobilised (paras [20]–[23]).
3. The suggested alternatives did not remove the danger. Continuing to manoeuvre risked contact with the bank; anchoring was hazardous; re-berthing involved risk at an unfendered wharf; and deliberate grounding was a hazardous last resort because of the condition of the river bottom (para [24]).
4. The fact that tug assistance was requested was consistent with the financial and physical risks confronting the vessel. Tramp was therefore in an unhappy predicament and clearly required tug services on salvage terms (para [25]).
5. Award. The service was short and relatively straightforward. It involved prompt attendance and a tow lasting only a few minutes. However, making fast required skilful manoeuvring, and the service safely removed a vessel from modest danger. The tug itself faced no material risk, and it had no claim to professional status. A fair but encouraging award was £12,500 (paras [26]–[30]).