Smit Salvage BV & Ors v Luster Maritime SA & Anor
[2023] EWHC 697 (Admlty)
SMIT Salvage BV & Ors v Luster Maritime SA & Anor (MV Ever Given – Salvage Claim)
19 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 260
Court of Appeal
A ship got stuck in the Suez Canal. A salvage company helped refloat it. A dispute arose over whether they had a contract. The court said they didn't because while they agreed on the price, other important details weren't settled. The salvage company could still get paid, but under salvage law, not a specific contract.
Key Facts
- •The M.V. 'Ever Given' grounded in the Suez Canal, blocking it.
- •SMIT Salvage provided services to refloat the vessel.
- •A dispute arose regarding whether a legally binding contract existed for SMIT's remuneration.
- •The owners argued a contract was formed via email exchange on March 26th, 2021, focusing on remuneration, leaving other terms for later agreement.
- •SMIT contended no contract was concluded, claiming salvage under the International Convention on Salvage 1989 or common law.
- •The Admiralty Court held that no contract was concluded.
- •The owners appealed this decision.
Legal Principles
Whether parties have concluded a legally binding contract, even with some matters still to be agreed, is determined by an objective appraisal of their words and conduct.
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Mueller GmbH & Co KG [2010] UKSC 14, [2010] 1 WLR 753; Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601; Global Asset Capital Inc v Aabar Block Sarl [2017] EWCA Civ 37, [2017] 4 WLR 163
In a salvage context, a consent to mobilisation and provision of assistance does not imply a contract's existence.
Case judgment
The burden lies on the party asserting a contract was concluded to establish it.
Case judgment
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The court agreed with the Admiralty judge that the email exchanges did not unequivocally demonstrate an intention to be bound by a contract concerning only remuneration. The communications were consistent with an intention to be bound only when all outstanding matters were agreed.
Similar Cases
SFL Ace 2 Company Inc v DCW Management Limited (Formerly Allseas Global Management Limited)
[2024] EWHC 1877 (Comm)
Southeaster Maritime Ltd v Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd mv "Aquafreedom"
[2024] EWHC 255 (Comm)
Boluda Towage Rotterdam BV & Ors v Elise Tanschiffahrt KG & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1329 (Admlty)
DHL Project & Chartering Limited v Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Limited
[2022] EWCA Civ 1555