A ship hit a reef while sailing, its hull broke into the water, and after the command of the maritime department and the assistance of the salvage bureau, the ship ran aground in the waters of the washout, and the ship’s goods was still in a dangerous condition. Defendant bareboat charterer commissioned Plaintiff salvor to carry out emergency rescue to avoid the sinking accident. After accepting the commission, the rescuer deployed a number of ships to carry out rescue. During the period, the salvor informed the bareboat charterer that the cost of the ships, equipment and personnel would be charged according to the market standard of the Diving and Salvage Association on the guiding price of the air diving operation and the use of emergency resources for the emergency disposal of the oil spill in Ningbo-Zhoushan sea area. Until the danger was basically under control, Defendant shipowner and the bareboat charterer did not raise any objection in this regard. The salvage operation of the salvor achieved good results, but the shipowner and the bareboat charterer did not pay the salvage operation expenses to the salvor, and the expenses were not recovered after repeated reminders, so the salvor filed an action before the court, requesting two Defendants to pay the emergency salvage expenses. The court held that (1) the shipowner should be the co-commissioner, because the rescuer’s rescue succeeded in avoiding the risk of oil pollution and environmental damage of the ship, the shipowner was the beneficiary of the rescue; the legal representative of the bareboat charterer was also the legal representative of the shipowner; during the rescue operation, the bareboat charterer and the shipowner sent their staffs to participate in contacting to discuss commissioning the rescue and the specific rescue matters. (2) The salvage contract in this case belonged to the employment salvage contract, according to the Maritime Code Article 179, in addition to the principle of “no effect, no pay”, the parties were allowed to agree on the determination of salvage pay. After the salvor put forward the charges, the shipowner and the demise charterer did not raise any objection, and it should be regarded that the two parties reached an agreement on the salvage remuneration rate. (3) The shipowner and demise charterer should pay the salvage remuneration. The information contained in the list of expenses provided by the salvor was relatively simple and weak, so in principle, the salvor’s claim was adopted in the rate calculation standard. However, both parties did not explicitly agreed personnel and equipment rate part of the actual input and specific rescue work, the comprehensive analysis of the rescuer’s evidence on the basis of the public appraisal report as the main basis. (4) The salvor had no right to request for confirmation of maritime liens because the salvor’s maritime liens was in force for more than one year since the date of termination of the salvage, and although the salvor applied for restriction of ship disposal before the expiration of the period, and also applied for seizure of the ship by the court in order to exercise the maritime liens, the salvor failed to provide security upon notification by the court, which should be regarded as a waiver of application for seizure of the ship and the failure to effectively exercise the maritime liens.

Zhejiang Manyang Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Hongxun Shipping Co., Ltd. et al.

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Martin Davies,
Jiang Lin

摘要

A ship hit a reef while sailing, its hull broke into the water, and after the command of the maritime department and the assistance of the salvage bureau, the ship ran aground in the waters of the washout, and the ship’s goods was still in a dangerous condition. Defendant bareboat charterer commissioned Plaintiff salvor to carry out emergency rescue to avoid the sinking accident. After accepting the commission, the rescuer deployed a number of ships to carry out rescue. During the period, the salvor informed the bareboat charterer that the cost of the ships, equipment and personnel would be charged according to the market standard of the Diving and Salvage Association on the guiding price of the air diving operation and the use of emergency resources for the emergency disposal of the oil spill in Ningbo-Zhoushan sea area. Until the danger was basically under control, Defendant shipowner and the bareboat charterer did not raise any objection in this regard. The salvage operation of the salvor achieved good results, but the shipowner and the bareboat charterer did not pay the salvage operation expenses to the salvor, and the expenses were not recovered after repeated reminders, so the salvor filed an action before the court, requesting two Defendants to pay the emergency salvage expenses. The court held that (1) the shipowner should be the co-commissioner, because the rescuer’s rescue succeeded in avoiding the risk of oil pollution and environmental damage of the ship, the shipowner was the beneficiary of the rescue; the legal representative of the bareboat charterer was also the legal representative of the shipowner; during the rescue operation, the bareboat charterer and the shipowner sent their staffs to participate in contacting to discuss commissioning the rescue and the specific rescue matters. (2) The salvage contract in this case belonged to the employment salvage contract, according to the Maritime Code Article 179, in addition to the principle of “no effect, no pay”, the parties were allowed to agree on the determination of salvage pay. After the salvor put forward the charges, the shipowner and the demise charterer did not raise any objection, and it should be regarded that the two parties reached an agreement on the salvage remuneration rate. (3) The shipowner and demise charterer should pay the salvage remuneration. The information contained in the list of expenses provided by the salvor was relatively simple and weak, so in principle, the salvor’s claim was adopted in the rate calculation standard. However, both parties did not explicitly agreed personnel and equipment rate part of the actual input and specific rescue work, the comprehensive analysis of the rescuer’s evidence on the basis of the public appraisal report as the main basis. (4) The salvor had no right to request for confirmation of maritime liens because the salvor’s maritime liens was in force for more than one year since the date of termination of the salvage, and although the salvor applied for restriction of ship disposal before the expiration of the period, and also applied for seizure of the ship by the court in order to exercise the maritime liens, the salvor failed to provide security upon notification by the court, which should be regarded as a waiver of application for seizure of the ship and the failure to effectively exercise the maritime liens.