SD Rebel BV & Anor v Elise Tankschiffahrt KG

Salvage services require an objectively real and sensible danger, or a sufficiently likely danger worthy of being addressed, when assistance is rendered. The danger need not be actual, immediate or inevitable. A reasonable apprehension of danger may suffice, especially where the vessel cannot safely escape without assistance. The court assesses the salvage reward as a single impressionistic exercise under article 13 of the Salvage Convention. It must consider all listed criteria, with the public policy of encouraging salvage operations in view. Professional salvors’ readiness, equipment and investment may justify substantial encouragement even where the operation is brief and simple.

The claimants, owners and crew of the tug VB REBEL, sought salvage remuneration and related relief against the owner of the tanker STELA. The tanker had grounded in the Port of Rotterdam and was refloated by the tug. The defendant denied that the services were salvage, disputed the effect of the signed Certificate of Safe Delivery, and continued parallel Dutch proceedings despite an interim anti-suit injunction granted by Andrew Baker J in [2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty).

The defendant did not attend the English trial. The court therefore considered the evidence and determined whether the services constituted salvage, the appropriate award, the validity of the jurisdiction agreement, and damages for breach of the anti-suit injunction.

1. Salvage. The services were salvage services. The tanker was hard aground on boulders on a falling tide, had shifted position, faced risks of hull and structural damage, and could not safely extricate herself without assistance. The signed certificate was further evidence in context. The objective danger test was satisfied: the danger was sufficiently likely to materialise to be worthy of being addressed (paras [23]–[32]).
2. Award. Article 13 of the Salvage Convention requires a single, impressionistic assessment of the listed criteria, directed by the policy of encouraging salvage operations. The court considered the modest salved fund, success, danger, promptness, the short duration of the service, the professional quality of the operation, and the tug owner’s maintained readiness and equipment. It fixed the total award at £90,000, of which the defendant’s share was 76.71%, or £69,039 (paras [33]–[48]).
3. The settlement with the cargo owners was taken into account only to a limited extent because its negotiation and underlying considerations were unclear and the environmental risk had later been discounted. Any surplus obtained by the salvor need not be brought into account under English law (paras [49]–[50]).
4. Jurisdiction agreement. The defences of non est factum and uncertainty failed. The master’s evidence did not establish the former, and the certificate clearly provided for English law and jurisdiction in London, meaning the London courts. The jurisdiction clause was therefore binding (paras [52]–[55]).
5. Relief. The court made a final anti-suit injunction and awarded €25,283.95 damages for costs incurred in defending the Dutch proceedings. The claimants were also entitled to damages for further losses flowing from the breach, to be assessed by the Admiralty Court, with permission to apply (para [56]).

The judgment is a first-instance decision. It records that Andrew Baker J granted an interim anti-suit injunction on 21 March 2024, in [2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty), and set aside service concerning claims by and against parties not bound by the jurisdiction agreement. This judgment made a final anti-suit injunction and awarded damages.