www.ousaokello.com

Summary

The High Court of Justice in England (the High Court) delivered a very interesting decision on the 27th of February, 2025, in the case of SD Rebel BV and another vs. Elise Tankschiffahrt KG. This case involves a salvage claim brought by the claimants, SD Rebel BV (owners of the tug “VB REBEL”) and the Master, Officers, and Crew of the VB REBEL, against the defendant, Elise Tankschiffahrt KG, the owner of the inland waterways tanker “MV STELA”. The claim arises from salvage services provided by the VB REBEL to the STELA on 14 November 2023 in the Port of Rotterdam.

Notwithstanding the issuance by the High Court of an anti-suit injunction, the defendant continued to defy the said injunction on the ground that the jurisdictional agreement was unenforceable for being, according to the defendant, “too vague as it specified the jurisdiction as “London” rather than the English courts”.

Background

A salvage claim was brought by the claimants against the defendant. On the 14th of November 2023, services were provided by the VB Rebel to the MV Stela at Scheurhaven, Port of Rotterdam. At the conclusion of the services, the Master of the Stela signed a ‘Certificate of Safe Delivery’ which stipulated that any dispute arising out of the provision of salvage services would ‘be settled in London, in accordance with English law’. Notwithstanding that stipulation, on the 24th of January 2024, the defendant commenced proceedings in the Rotterdam District Court seeking a declaration that the services provided did not amount to salvage and, in the alternative, for the Dutch Court to determine the salvage award. To commence proceedings in Rotterdam was an apparent breach of the jurisdiction agreement in the Certificate of Safe Delivery. The claimants therefore issued proceedings in England and, on the 20th of February 2024, applied for an anti-suit injunction.

Analysis and finding of the court

This case involves several key issues. For the sake of brevity we shall look at the issues and the finding of the court on the same. The issues include:

1. Jurisdiction and Anti-Suit Injunction: The defendant initially breached the jurisdiction agreement (which stipulated that disputes would be settled in London under English law) by commencing proceedings in the Rotterdam District Court. The English court granted an anti-suit injunction, but the defendant continued with the Dutch proceedings, leading to parallel litigation in two jurisdictions.
2. Salvage Services: The court had to determine whether the services provided by the VB REBEL amounted to salvage under English law. The court found that the services did constitute salvage, as the STELA was in real and sensible danger when it ran aground, and the tug’s assistance was necessary to prevent further damage and potential environmental harm.
3. Salvage Award: The court assessed the salvage award based on the criteria set out in Article 13 of the Salvage Convention. The court considered factors such as the salved value of the vessel and cargo, the skill and efforts of the salvors, the nature of the danger, and the promptness of the services. The court awarded £90,000, with the defendant (as owner of the STELA) responsible for 76.71% of the award (£69,039).
4. Breach of Anti-Suit Injunction: The defendant’s arguments that the jurisdiction agreement was void for uncertainty or that the Master of the STELA did not understand the document he signed (non est factum) were rejected. The court found that the jurisdiction agreement was clear and enforceable, and the Master’s failure to properly understand the document did not invalidate it. The court awarded damages to the claimants for the costs incurred in defending the Dutch proceedings.
5. Settlement with Cargo Owners: The claimants had separately settled with the cargo owners (ExxonMobil) for £150,000, but the court gave limited weight to this settlement in determining the salvage award, as the circumstances of the settlement were not fully known.

Key Legal Principles:

• Salvage Services: To qualify as salvage, there must be a real and sensible danger to the vessel or property, and the services must be voluntary and successful in saving the property.

• Jurisdiction Agreements: A jurisdiction clause in a contract is generally enforceable unless there is a valid legal reason to set it aside (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation, or incapacity).

• Anti-Suit Injunctions: Courts may issue anti-suit injunctions to prevent parties from pursuing litigation in a foreign court in breach of a valid jurisdiction agreement.

• Salvage Awards: Salvage awards are determined based on the criteria in the Salvage Convention, with the aim of encouraging salvage operations. The award should be proportionate to the services rendered and the value of the salved property.

Outcome:

• The court awarded £69,039 to the claimants, representing the defendant’s share of the salvage award.

• The court granted a final anti-suit injunction and awarded damages for the costs incurred in defending the Dutch proceedings.

• The court rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the validity of the jurisdiction agreement and the nature of the salvage services.

Our Comments:

This case highlights the importance of clear jurisdiction agreements in maritime contracts and the principles governing salvage claims under English law which principles are founded on article 13 of the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 (the Salvage Convention). The Salvage Convention, being a convention of the International Maritime Organization and made, with one of its aims being, to ensure that salvors are rewarded for their skill and efforts as well as encouraging timely and efficient salvage operations, is a vital cog to the safety of ships around the world. Many countries have ratified the Salvage Convention, integrating its principles into their national laws, which has strengthened international cooperation in maritime salvage. It is in this context that the decision of the High Court, which actually applies the principles of the Salvage Convention, is of great interest.

The decision also demonstrates the court’s willingness to enforce anti-suit injunctions to uphold jurisdiction agreements and prevent forum shopping.

The decision is available here.