Shipping Law Protection of the Marine En
Shipping Law
Protection of the Marine Environment-
Under pressure from the salvage operators, the LOF 1980 was modified to permit the recovery of the
salvors expenses, where the salvage operation concerned oil tankers, if the salvage reward under the
no-cure no-pay principle was insufficient. The Salvage Convention is the salvage law for England
overriding all pre-existing laws of salvage.
The Salvage Convention-
The SC applies where salvage matters are brought before an English court or an arbitration panel
seated in England. Thus it applies irrespective of the flag of the ships involved, or the area of the sea
in which the salvage operation is undertaken (war ships and state owned vessels are generally
excluded). The UK has reduced the scope of the application of the salvage convention by excluding
salvage operations in inland waters, where all vessels involved are that of inland navigation.
Unless permanently and intentionally attached to the shore, an object or structure can be subject to
salvage, such as freight or cargo. For an operation to fall under the definition of salvage, the relevant
property must be in danger (Art. 1 (a)). The Salvage Convention does not define the term danger. The
pre-existing requirement under English law is that of “real danger, reasonably apprehended”. This
notion is widely accepted. The danger does not need to be present at the time of the sustained
damage, provided that it is reasonably expected that it will arise before self-help can remedy the
situation. Thus a ship immobilised by engine failure is in a general state of danger, even if it is
anchored and the weather is calm and if there is no possibility for repairs to be performed. Refer to
The Troilus and the Glenogle (1951). Also, a vessel breaking one mooring line, and swinging around
its mooring point would be in danger, if there was a risk of a collision with a buoy. Refer to The
Hantum and the St John (1999), or if it unable to turn around in a strong current. Refer to The Tramp
(2007.
Whether the vessel is in danger or not is to be decided objectively by the judge or arbitrator. The
Master’s opinion is not conclusive in this respect, Refer to The Hantum and the St John (1999). Even
if he is the person who will request or accept the salvage assistance.
The salvor is under a duty to perform the salvage operation with due care, and in doing so to
minimise environmental damage and, to seek assistance from other salvors if needed. If the salvor
fails to fulfil these duties, he may receive a reduced reward or, no reward at all (Art. 18). The owners
of the property in danger are under an obligation to cooperate fully with the salvor, to prevent or
minimise environmental damage, and to accept re-delivery at a place of safety.
The obligation of the property owners to accept re-delivery at a place of safety can be problematic.
The salvage convention does not define what a place of safety is. Under pre-existing English law, the
most generally accepted definition of “a place of safety” is that a POS does not only need to be
physically safe but also needs to have the appropriate facilities to put the vessel back into service.
Refer to The Troilus and the Glenogle (1951). One could argue that the following term would be a
better definition; “a place of physical safety can be a place where the property can stay without being
under immediate threat from the elements, even if it cannot be repaired and returned into service.
One may also argue that once the property/vessel has been brought into physical safety, cheaper
methods of transportation to a place of repair, eg towage, could and should be employed, if
available. If a salvage operation has a useful result, then a right to a reward arises (Art. 12). The SC
does not define what a useful result is, the term may imply an improvement to the condition, value
or quantity of the property salved, and not merely that just some property has been salved.
So if for eg, the salvors save property that would have been saved without their assistance, clearly no
useful result has been achieved, meaning that no reward should be given. Also, under English law,
salvors are liable for any damage caused as a result of their negligence, and ship-owners can recover
such damages. Refer to The Tojo Maru (1972). However salvors do possess a limited liability
exposure under schedule 7 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
The wording in Art 12 suggests that the term useful, implies more than the mere salvage of property.
As such, an alternative argument may be that the salvage of any property is in itself a useful result,
subject to the reservation that where the salvor has not exercised due care or has not been efficient,
he may face a reduced reward under Art 13, or full deprivation of the reward under Art 18. Where
the saving of lives at sea does not alone provide a right for reward, when the life is saved together
with property, the SC provides for a fair share of the amount paid for salvage. (due to increased risk).
Who can claim the salvage reward?The right to a SR is supported by a maritime lien of the highest priority, refer to The Bold Buccleugh
(1851) & The Ruta (2000), and by a possessory lien. The only restriction stopping a maritime lien
from being imposed is when security is provided. To enhance the probability of recovery for the
salvor, the SC provides that the ship or other property salved, should not be moved from the port
prior to the provision of security.
Apportionment of the SR and limitation of liabilityThe time bar for any payment in relation the SC, is two years from the termination of the salvage
operation (Art. 23).
Protection of the Marine Environment-
Under pressure from the salvage operators, the LOF 1980 was modified to permit the recovery of the
salvors expenses, where the salvage operation concerned oil tankers, if the salvage reward under the
no-cure no-pay principle was insufficient. The Salvage Convention is the salvage law for England
overriding all pre-existing laws of salvage.
The Salvage Convention-
The SC applies where salvage matters are brought before an English court or an arbitration panel
seated in England. Thus it applies irrespective of the flag of the ships involved, or the area of the sea
in which the salvage operation is undertaken (war ships and state owned vessels are generally
excluded). The UK has reduced the scope of the application of the salvage convention by excluding
salvage operations in inland waters, where all vessels involved are that of inland navigation.
Unless permanently and intentionally attached to the shore, an object or structure can be subject to
salvage, such as freight or cargo. For an operation to fall under the definition of salvage, the relevant
property must be in danger (Art. 1 (a)). The Salvage Convention does not define the term danger. The
pre-existing requirement under English law is that of “real danger, reasonably apprehended”. This
notion is widely accepted. The danger does not need to be present at the time of the sustained
damage, provided that it is reasonably expected that it will arise before self-help can remedy the
situation. Thus a ship immobilised by engine failure is in a general state of danger, even if it is
anchored and the weather is calm and if there is no possibility for repairs to be performed. Refer to
The Troilus and the Glenogle (1951). Also, a vessel breaking one mooring line, and swinging around
its mooring point would be in danger, if there was a risk of a collision with a buoy. Refer to The
Hantum and the St John (1999), or if it unable to turn around in a strong current. Refer to The Tramp
(2007.
Whether the vessel is in danger or not is to be decided objectively by the judge or arbitrator. The
Master’s opinion is not conclusive in this respect, Refer to The Hantum and the St John (1999). Even
if he is the person who will request or accept the salvage assistance.
The salvor is under a duty to perform the salvage operation with due care, and in doing so to
minimise environmental damage and, to seek assistance from other salvors if needed. If the salvor
fails to fulfil these duties, he may receive a reduced reward or, no reward at all (Art. 18). The owners
of the property in danger are under an obligation to cooperate fully with the salvor, to prevent or
minimise environmental damage, and to accept re-delivery at a place of safety.
The obligation of the property owners to accept re-delivery at a place of safety can be problematic.
The salvage convention does not define what a place of safety is. Under pre-existing English law, the
most generally accepted definition of “a place of safety” is that a POS does not only need to be
physically safe but also needs to have the appropriate facilities to put the vessel back into service.
Refer to The Troilus and the Glenogle (1951). One could argue that the following term would be a
better definition; “a place of physical safety can be a place where the property can stay without being
under immediate threat from the elements, even if it cannot be repaired and returned into service.
One may also argue that once the property/vessel has been brought into physical safety, cheaper
methods of transportation to a place of repair, eg towage, could and should be employed, if
available. If a salvage operation has a useful result, then a right to a reward arises (Art. 12). The SC
does not define what a useful result is, the term may imply an improvement to the condition, value
or quantity of the property salved, and not merely that just some property has been salved.
So if for eg, the salvors save property that would have been saved without their assistance, clearly no
useful result has been achieved, meaning that no reward should be given. Also, under English law,
salvors are liable for any damage caused as a result of their negligence, and ship-owners can recover
such damages. Refer to The Tojo Maru (1972). However salvors do possess a limited liability
exposure under schedule 7 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
The wording in Art 12 suggests that the term useful, implies more than the mere salvage of property.
As such, an alternative argument may be that the salvage of any property is in itself a useful result,
subject to the reservation that where the salvor has not exercised due care or has not been efficient,
he may face a reduced reward under Art 13, or full deprivation of the reward under Art 18. Where
the saving of lives at sea does not alone provide a right for reward, when the life is saved together
with property, the SC provides for a fair share of the amount paid for salvage. (due to increased risk).
Who can claim the salvage reward?The right to a SR is supported by a maritime lien of the highest priority, refer to The Bold Buccleugh
(1851) & The Ruta (2000), and by a possessory lien. The only restriction stopping a maritime lien
from being imposed is when security is provided. To enhance the probability of recovery for the
salvor, the SC provides that the ship or other property salved, should not be moved from the port
prior to the provision of security.
Apportionment of the SR and limitation of liabilityThe time bar for any payment in relation the SC, is two years from the termination of the salvage
operation (Art. 23).