clr/1962/1962_1_325.pdf

(2)The unloading of the cargo, in the ominisinnce·., wni closely connected with, and inseparable from the safety of the ship and its equipment ; and that both ship and cargo were at· the material time I.e., prior to unloading, undei the control of the ship's master, who requested and authorized the plaintiffs to render salvage service in respect of both ship and cargo, for "whom it may concern".

(3)Such services were in fact being rendered for the bene­ fit of both ship and cargo, for over an hour, before the arrival of a person who had authority to act for the defendants as consignees of the goods ; but no authority to actfor the ship­ owners.

(4)The result of the discussion was that the representatives of the defendants eventually agreed that the unloading be done by the plaintiffs, who in their turn agreed to place the goods,on defendant's lorries for transport to the Customs.

(5)The unloading of the goods was done as efficiently as it could be done, in the circumstances. Plaintiffs and their men had every reason to do that, and had the ability to d o i t ; while Customs guards and defendants employee were watching.

(6)The goods were released on the defendants' under­ taking to pay to the plaintiffs such remuneration, for the ser­ vices, as the plaintiffs might be entitled to.

(7)Both ship and cargo were still in danger of damage or destruction, when the plaintiffs offered salvage services, (in­ divisible at that time as between ship and cargo) on the clear understanding that they (the services) would be treated and rewarded accordingly. Such,services were offered by profes­ sional salvors to the master of the ship who, in my opinion, was at the material time, in charge of both ship and cargo ; and who accepted the services offered, and agreed that they would be rewarded as salvage. (β) Such services could not be interrupted or discontinued by the consignees of the cargo at the time when the defen­ dants' agent "A" attempted to do so. And I think that "A" 326 took the right course when he allowed the plaintiffs to unload the goods in the course of their work assalvors of ship and cargo, and put them on defendants' lorries for transport to the Customs. 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SAI.VACIF L T D . v. PHOTOS

(9)At the Customs, the plaintiffs claimed their lien on the goods, whic,h were eventually released by the Authority concerned, only when " A " agreed that the consignees would pay whatever the plaintiffs might be entitled to. Even as put In exhibit 2 (the letter of the 16th February) the effect of this undertaking was that, failing a compromise, his principals would pay whatever might be awarded to plaintiffs by the Court. Defendants cannot now deny liability.

(10)On the question of the amount, I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to salvage reward including expenses to the . sum of £259.

(11)I have divided the salvage reward (which I assess at £150) as well as other services affecting ship and cargo, as both were equally benefited, In my opinion, from the services so divided. The other half may form part of the claim against the ship. judgment forplaintiffs for£259 with coststo be taxed on the amount recovered. Admiralty Action. Admiralty action instituted by plaintiffs against defendants claiming (

1. a)£250.— remuneration for salvage services rendered by plaintiffs to a stranded vessel carrying goods consigned'to the defendants and (
2. b)£329.251) mils for woik done in connection w i l h the discharge and transport o f the goods from the stranded ship to the Ionics which carried the goods to the customs, and thereafter to defendant;/ stores. G. Michaclidcs for the plaintiffs. D. Liveras for the defendants. V.ASSII.IADIS, J . :This is a claim b\ J r'ainauusta company operating inter alia as .sea salvors, made against a l i n n o f importers in Nieosia; it arises from services rendered by ihc plaintiffs to a stranded motor-vessel carrying goods consigned to 327 PuoriADis & c o 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE L I D . v. Pm>ιos PHOTIADKS & CO. Viissiliiides, J. the defendants. The cargo consisted of 47 tons of bananas in bunches, shipped at Beyrouth for Famagusta. The claim consists of two items : Ui) £250.-- remuneration for salvage services rcndeied to the cargo in question ; and (
3. b)£329.250 mils for work done in connection with the discharge and transport of the goods from the stranded ship to the lorries which carried the goods to the Customs, and thereafter to defendants' stores. The claim is contested on the ground that the plaintifls did not render salvage services to the cargo ; but merely unloaded the goods from the damaged ship, and put them on defendants' lorries, acting on the master's request, who had no authority to bind thedefendants. And moreover,that the plaintiffs acted arbitrarily, against the wishes of the defen­ dants who were ready to unload theirgoods from thestranded ship, by their own servants. Furthermore, the defendants contest the amounts claim­ ed, both for salvage services, if any, and for the unloading of the goods, which (amounts) the defendants find grossly exag­ gerated. Four witnesses were called in support of the claim ; and three for the defence. The facts of the case present no diffi­ culty. On the evidence before me, 1findthem as follows :— About the 12th February, 1962, witness Petimezakis. (P.W.3) the master of motor-vessel Ayia Fotini, undertook to carry on his ship from Beyrouth to Famagusta harbour, a cargo of about 47 tons of bananas in bunches,-consigned to the defendants. The freight was arranged through the shipowner's local agents at Beyrouth as usual. Ayia Fotini is a Greek motor-vessel of wooden construc­ tion, of a gross tonnage of about 180 tons, equipped with a Ϊ50 horse-power marine diescl engine, and auxiliary sails. She belongs to the master's father who lives at Kavalla, in Greek Macedonia ; and who bought the ship in 1947, and put her in the charge of his son (P.W.3) ever since. In February 1962, the crew on this vessel consisted of the said master, a 46-year old seaman with about 25 years' experience, (P.W.3) ; his wife and his daughter, both of 328 whom had been with him at sea as crew on this vessel for consideiable time ; and an Arab professional sailor in the ship's serviee for about 18 months. For the last two and a half years prior to the voyage in question, this shff> was running freight-trips between themain­ land and Cyprus, usually Famagusta, where the ship's local agent was one Mustafa Kirikli. This was the first time the ship carried cargo for the defendants. When he-left Beyrouth, the evening of the 12th February, the ship's master was carrying with him in an envelope the .shipping documents destined for the consignee of the goods. There is no direct evidence as to whether the master knew the» contents of these documents ; and as the matter is'in dispute, I accept the master's evidence in this connection, and Ifind accordingly. The morning of the 13th February, when the ship was about 30 miles away from Famagusta, she had engine-trouble. As the weather was calm, the master attempted a repair, lo discover in the end, that one of the pistons cracked,and so the engine could no longer serve the vessel. With the help of some breeze, which came up during the night the ship was making her way.with her sails towards Cyprus. At dawn of the 14th February, land was visible, about 15 miles away ; but as the wind was growing dangerously strong, wilh a north-easierly direction," the master decided lo send off the Arab sailor in a boal wilh a small sail lo get to the coast for help. This was about 6a.m., when the ship was" about 10 miles from the coast, between cape Greco and Famagusta. About a couple of hours later, the lop ail of the main mafil broke under the force of the wind, falling into the sea with the main sail. "The best I could do, ihc master said in evidence, was lo drop my two anchors and wait for help. In the meantime the wind was carrying us lowaids the coast. It was clear thai unless a tug-boat ani\ed in lime, ihc \\ ind ami rouyh se.is would throw us"out.-oii Iο the locks". When the sun went down, the ship'was at a.point about three miles from cape Greco. When darkness came a big '329 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE LTD. V. PHOTOS PlIOTIADfcS & CO. Vassiliades, J. · 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE LTD. I·. PHOIOS pHOHADfcS & Ci». VassiHades,J. kerosene lamp was hoisted to make Ihc ship visible lo the expected help while she was being earned towards ihe rocky coast. It was hoped that eventually her anchors would make,her fast, pending the arrival of assistance. For the purpose of this judgment, I find it unnecessary to go further with the story of the ship's misfortune thenight of the 14th February. The chains of her anchors breaking, one after the other, under the force of the wind, the vessel was thrown by the rough seas,against a rocky shore, at about 20.15 hours, some eleven miles from Famagusta harbour, after an unsuccessful attempt by the Harbour Services to help her. Her injured crew were landed with the help of a Police party, and were taken first to hospital for attendance. and later that night, to an hotel in Famagusta. I find the facts in this connection in the evidence of the master (P.W.3) and of witness Kantounas (P.W.I) the Harbour Master and Senior Pilot, Famagusta, who came out in a tug-boat for help. I found them both, truthful and reliable witnesses, each within the limits of his ability of description and recollection. Where their evidence does not tally, 1 accept that of the Harbour Master, who was able to give a more accurate description of what happened. On returning to Famagusta at about 11 p.m., witness Kantounas (P.W.I) contacted the Police, and then went to see the ship's master at the hotel. From there he went to the Marine Club where he happened to see Mr. Branco, of the plaintiff-company. They discussed the event, and on Branco's suggestion, they both went together with the Inspector of the Customs Preventive Services, Mr. T. Christou, in Branco's car, to see the stranded vessel. She was guarded by police, but was otherwise unattended. They climbed on the pounding vessel, where Branco put out the swinging kerosene lamp lest it caused a fire. I do not propose going further into what happened on this occasion, as I take the view that, in the circumstances of this case, whatever Branco did that night on the ship. was not intended to be claimed as a salvage service for reward ; nor would I be inclined to reward it as such. It was. I think, aptly described by witness Kantounas as a friendly gesture from one seaman to another. Early next morning, the 15th February, at about 6a.m. 330 the ship's master (P.W.3) went to the harbour to arrange for salvage. There he found the Harbour Master (P.W.I) ; and soon after Mr. Branco (P.W.4) airived. "I discussed the matter with him, the ship's master stated in evidence — and I requested him to carry out salvage work for the vessel, engine, cargo, and whatever else could be saved". Branco agreed to do so. They went to plaintiff's office where arrangements were made for six of plaintiff's regular personnel with suitable equipment to proceed to the spot where the stranded ship was found. Police and Customs guards were guarding her from ashore, while the ship was still being pounded against the rocks 'sythe continuing rough weather. On the way, arrangements were made for the engagement of labourers from.a neighbouring village. Before commencing work, Branco requested the ship's master to confirm in writing their agreement for salvage by signing exh.l (Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage"Agreed ment) and another document in Greek to the same effect. The ship was then first made fast with ropes ; decks were cleared ; oil drums and other equipmenl removed ; a hole letting water into thetvessel.was plugged ; the starboard side . 'was lightened to minimize rolling ; and generally salvage work was proceeding for over an hour, when defendants' agent, Mr. Anatolitis (D.W.I) arrived there, together with the Collector of Customs, Famagusta, Mr. Lewis (P.W.2) and others who came in connection with the cargo. The defendants, as consignees*of the goods, instructed their Clearing Agents in Famagusta, Messrs. Francoudi and Stephanou Ltd., the employers of witness Anatolitis (D.W.I.) to collect the goods and forward them to Nicosia. They purported to do so as agents of the shipowner, appointed by the shipper. On this point, Iaccept the evidence of the ship's master, and Ifindthat the defendants had no authority from the shipowner or the ship's master to act as their agents in connection with the voyage, or ihe cargo, in question. After inspecting ihc cargo, witness Anatolitis suggested takingcharge of the unloading of thegoods for the defendants. Branco objected, on ihc ground that he had already arranged matters with the ship's master, whom he considered responsible for ship and cargo, at that stage. 331 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAOE L T D . V. PHOTOS PMOTIADES & CO. VassiHades, J. 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE L T D . I·. Piκι ι<»s PHO HADES & «O. Vassiliades, J. This discussion took place in the presence of the ship's master (P.W.3) who confirmed his instructions to the plain­ tiffs, and in the presence of the Collector of Customs, witness Lewis (P.W.2) on whose evidence-coming from an indepen­ dent source, I make my findings in this connection, wherewi the parties' evidence does not agree. I lake the view that the unloading of the cargo, in the circumstances, was closely connected wilh, and inseparable from the safety of the ship and its equipment ; and that both ship and cargo were at the material time i.e. prior to unloa­ ding, under the control of the ship's master, who requested and authorized the plaintills to render salvage service in respect of both ship and cargo, for "whom it may concern". Such services were in fact being rendered for the benefit of both ship and cargo, for over an hour, before the arrival of wit. Anatolitis (D.W.I.) who had authority to act for the defendants as consignees of the goods ; but no authority to act for the shipowners. The result of the discussion was that the representatives of the defendants eventually agreed that the unloading be done by the plaintilfs, who in their turn agreed to place the goods on defendants' lorries for transport to the Customs. On this point, Iaccept the evidence of witness Branco (P.W.4) and J find accordingly. In fact the unloading of the goods from the stranded ship, and their loading on defendants' lorries more than a hundred yards'away, over ground too rough for the lorries lo approach, was done by the plaintiffs. The goods were to be transported to the Customs, under the Collector's control as they were still to be cleared on payment of duty, and as they came from a wreck. Defendants' representative, witness Anastassiou (D.W.2) remained there to watch the unloading for his employers, all that day. Rejecting this witness' evidence on the point, I find that the unloading of the goods was done as efficiently as it could be done, in the circumstances. Plaintilfs and their men had every reason to do that, and had the ability to do it ; while Customs guards and defendants' employee were watching. In the afternoon of the same day, the 15th February, witness Branco(P.W.4) saw theCollector of Customs (P.W.2) to request that the cargo should be treated as subject to a 332 claim for salvage onhispart ; and should not bedelivered to theconsignee unless he.agreed to meet this claim. As the goods were ofa perishable nature, the matter was refer­ red to the Receiver ofWrecks, who discussed the matterwith plaintiffs' and defendants' representative. Eventually an arrangement was reached under which the goods, still on the lorries, were released for delivery tothedefendantsatNicosia. In this connectionIaccept the evidence ofwitness Lewis (P.W.2) and Branco (P.W.4) ; andI find accordingly. I find that the goods were released on defendants' undertaking to pay tothe plaintiffs such remunerationfor their seryices, as the plaintiffs might beentitled to. The unloading continued on the following day, the 16th February, when, oncompletion of the work, the plaintiffs submitted todefendants' agents their bill, exhibit 3,contain­ ing a claim for £329.250 expenses, made upof 6 different• items, plus £250 for salvageofthecargo, thevalue ofwhichis admittedly over £2,500. The defendants rejected this claim as exaggerated ; hence this action. The matters fordecision, on these facts, are: — . Γ„τ>.'* .* > (a)' are the plaintiffs*entitled tosalvage reward incon­ nection with defendants' goods ? (b). if yes, what amount? Taking thelaw regarding themeaning of salvage and salvage services, from paragraphs 1109-1113ofLordSimond's edition (3rd Ed.)of Halsbury's Laws of England,inVol. 35, at p.731 etseq., 1have no difficulty or hesitationin answering . the first question inthe affirmative. Moreover, inthis con­ nection 1 was assisted byreference to Chapter 1(p. 1-13 incl.) of the4th Ed.

(1958)of Lord Kennedy's Civil Salvage. The natureof a salvage Service, the reasons which render its existence and maintenance desirable, where there is navi­ gation, and whyit stands ona separate fooling as regards remuneration, arc obvious matters and need nocomment. Both ship and cargo were still in danger of damageοι destruction, when the plaintilfs offered salvage >eivices. (indivisible at that time as between ship and cargo) on the clear understanding that they (the services would betreated 333 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE LTD. v. PHU rus PlIOflADES & Co Vassiltades, l. 1962 Dec. 15 BRANCO SALVAGE LTD. V. PHOTOS PHOTIADES SL CO. Vassiliades,J. and rewarded accordingly. Such services were offered by professional salvors to the master of the ship who, in my opinion, wasat thematerial time, incharge of both shipand cargo ; and who accepted-the services offered, and agreed that they would be rewarded as salvage. I take theview that such servicescould notbeinterrupted or discontinued by the consignees of the cargo at the time when the defendants' agent attempted to do so. And I think that witness Anatolitis (D.W.I) took the right course when he allowed the plaintiffs to unload the goods in the course of their work as salvors of ship and cargo, and put them on defendants' lorries for transport to theCustoms. At the Customs, the plaintiffs claimed their lien on the goods, which were eventually released by the Authority concerned, only when witness Anatolitis agreed that theconsignees would pay whatever the plaintiffs might be entitled to. F.ven asputin exhibit 2(theletter of the 16th February) the effect of this undertaking was, that failing a compromise, his principals would paywhatever might beawarded to plaintiffs by the Court. Defendants cannot now deny liability. Coming to the question of amount, I find that plaintiffs are entitled tosalvage reward (including expenses) as follows: (taking the items from the particulars in paragraph 7of the statement of claim) 1. (a) Payment of wages to 18labourers locally employed for 2days including overtime £135. (b) Onehalf ofthe wagesof6regular personnel in plaintiffs' service, for 2days at£2. p.d each. £ 12.— (c) Useof Landrover H.150 for transporting salvors' personnel and equipment for 2 days (one half of the charge) £ 5.— (d) Use of plaintiffs' motor car BN46 for 2 days (onehalf of the charge) £ 4.- (e) Supervision bysalvageofficers andexamination — (This, I think, is covered by the salvage reward). Nothing allowed under this item. (f) Expenses in wages of Customs Guards, 334 Tally Clerks, Preventive Service Guards, hire of lights and insurance for labourers and personnel (Wholly concerning the -cargo) 1962 ,Dec. 15 £ 28.— £184.— 2. One half of thesalvage reward for the services rendered on the two days in question (inclu­ ding (e) above) Total £ 75.— £259.— I have divided thesalvage reward (which Ϊassess at £150) as well as other services affecting ship and cargo,as both were equally-benefited, in m> opinion,from theservices so divided. The other half may form part of theclaim against the ship. There will,therefore, bejudgment for plaintiffs for £259. With costs to be taxed on the amount recovered. Judgment Jar plaintiffs for £259. 335 BRANCO SALVAOB LTD. v. PHOTOS PHOTIADES & co. Vassiliades,J.