TugAdvise logo
+44 (0)20 7929 0268
  • Home
  • About us
  • What we do
  • Who we work for
  • Team
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About us
  • What we do
  • Who we work for
  • Team
  • Contact

No salvage operation is ever clear-cut

12th May 2012

On 1st September 1991 a Cape Town based tug, Herdentor (125 ton BP), secured a line on board the laden tanker Atlas Pride drifting 40 miles off East London. After 10 days holding the casualty, the Herdentor slipped its tow, and left. There followed the mother of all legal battles, as Simon Tatham explains.

Herdentor had been engaged under a Towhire contract by one of the European based international salvors. They in turn had been awarded an LOF, but they depended on what units were available locally. After the tow was abandoned, they had to engage further subcontractors, this time on ISU Award Sharing terms. The salvors, rather than paying a daily rate, found themselves having to share the salvage award for the work they argued the Herdentor should have done. They claimed back the difference. The High Court decided that there was a valid claim for diminution in the price received for the services.

The case highlights the misunderstandings that can arise when a tug is engaged on commercial terms to carry out what is, to all intents and purposes, a salvage operation. The owners of the Herdentor believed they were being engaged to escort or assist the casualty into port. The salvors maintained that the Herdentor had to follow orders, until placed offhire.

Where the lead contractor, having secured an LOF, critically needs a local tug but is reluctant to share his eventual award, there are a number of potential sub-contracts that might be employed. A daily rate contract is generally preferred because it may be uncertain how long the job will last. For example there may be no port authority prepared to give refuge or it may take weeks before they are placated and provided with security. Towhire is the most commonly used agreement, not because it is ideally suited, unless of course the operation is a straightforward tow, but rather because the towage industry is familiar with it. Supplytime tends to feature more prominently where OSVs are involved, for the same reason. It is arguably the least suitable in unamended form for salvage, unless being used for ancillary supporting services. To address this, the ISU in 2005 came up with the Salvhire and Salvcon forms of agreement, for use where a salvor wishes to engage sub-contracted assistance in a salvage operation. These do not differ greatly from Towhire or Towcon but have standard clauses germane to a salvage situation allowing the scope of the work to be set out. They have been not however been generally adopted to date.

Uncertainty can prevail at the outset of an incident. A tugowner who has a suitably crewed and equipped unit may rightly be tempted to hold out for award sharing terms rather than accept a daily rate, especially if his property and crew are taking risks. But all too often precious little information is made available to him: what is the condition of the ship and cargo, are there other units in the area who will then take the job?  For whatever reason, the owners of the Herdentor were not willing to commit further, and walked away. Subcontractors in such situations would be best advised to take careful stock of the situation, before getting into it.

Simon Tatham

Simon Tatham is a partner at Tatham Law and founder member of the www.tugadvise.com service. He has more than 30 years’ experience of shipping law.


Reproduced with kind permission of International Tug & OSV magazine

Sign up to our circularsCirculars

News

February 2023 – Paul Haworth joins the TugAdvise team

Paul, a Master Mariner solicitor, has for many years acted for tug owners and salvors, as well as Clubs and insurers on wet cases, and was himself Master of a DP vessel in the offshore sector before coming ashore to retrain as a lawyer.  His arrival further strengthens our unique, dedicated legal service to the…

Read More

Articles

The “EVER GIVEN” – grounding Suez Canal – March 2021

Smit Salvage BV & Ors v Luster Maritime SA & Anr (The ‘Ever Given’) [2023] EWHC 697 Admlty) Today we look at what went wrong and the lessons to be learned when in March 2021 the owners of the EVER GIVEN sought to avoid a salvage claim and started negotiations for a commercial contract to…

Read More

The EVER GIVEN – was there a concluded contract? The Admiralty Court says no.

The grounding of the 20,400 teu “EVER GIVEN” in the Suez Canal is well-known, but much less is understood about what was going on behind the scenes as the parties negotiated for her refloating. It has proven controversial. A recent Admiralty Court judgement has now thrown light upon exactly what happened. At about 07.40hrs LT…

Read More

  • Credits
  • Legal notice
  • Complaints

© 2023 TugAdvise

TugAdvise is a trading name of Tatham Law LLP
Tatham Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitor’s Regulation
Authority (SRA). SRA number 657564.