clr/1977/1977_1_9.pdf

1977 Jan. 22 [MALACHTOS, J.]

1. THESHIP "KALLIOPI Τ",
2. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP "KALUOPI V COMMERTRADER COMMERCIALAND SHIPPING ENTERPRISESLTD., Plaintiffs, v. THE SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH", Defendants. (Admiralty Action No. 202/76). 5 Admiralty — Salvage— Salvageservices— Reward — Assess­ ment — Principles applicable — Salvage operation consisting mainly in the towingof defendant ship for about 75 miles to the port of destination of the salvor ship—No danger run by salvorshipand her crewin carrying out theoperation—Value of defendant ship and degreeof danger suchship, her passen­ gersand crewwererunning at the time—Award of C£l£
3. Salvage—Salvage services—Reward—Assessment—See, also, under "Admiralty". 10 15 20 25 At about midnight of the 16th November, 1976 whilst the plaintiff No. 1 ship was coming from Junie of Lebanon to Cyprus directed to Limassol port her master noticed about three to four miles to his left lights signalling and he realised that there was something afloat which needed help. At once the master ordered change of course of his ship and when he approached the lights he found out that they were coming from the defendant ship. He heard shouts of panic. Men, women and children on board the defendant ship were in distress. And when he asked what was happening he was told thatthe engine of the ship was out of order. There were 36 passengers and the crew on the defendant ship. The master of plaintiff ship was told to tow the defendant ship to a safe part in order to save her, as well as her passengers and crew. This he did and at about 2 a.m. of the 17th November, 1976, he started towing the defendant ship towards Limassol. At 12.30 p.m. of the same day the ship was safely towed to Limassol port. On the way he supplied the defendant ship with food, medical supplies, water and milk and other necessaries. No agreement 9 SHIP "KALUOPI T* AND ANOTHER v. SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH*· 1977 Jan. 22 SHIP 'KALUOPI Γ* .ND ANOTHER v. SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH" was made between him and the master of the defendant ship as to his remuneration. The estimated value of the defendant ship was 25,000 dollars. In an undefended action for salvage compensation for the salvage services rendered to the defendant ship and for expenses incurred out of the salvage operation of the said ship: 5 Held, (after stating the principlesgoverningassessment of salvagecompensation—vide pp. 12 -13 post) that taking into account the fact that the salvage operation consisted mainly in the towing of the defendant ship for a distance of about 75 \Q miles to the port of Limassol, that Limassol was the port of destination of the salvor ship, the degree of danger the defen­ dant ship, her passengers and crew were running at the time, the fact that the salvor ship and her crew did not run any danger in carrying out the salvage operation and the value of 15 the defendant ship a global sum of C £1,250 will be awarded as areasonable award to the plaintiffs. Order accordingly. Cases referred to: Attorney-General of the Republic v. M/T Keisserswaard and Another [1965] 1 CL.R.433; 20 Branco SalvageLtd. v. The Ship "Demetrios" and hercargo and freight[196g] 1C.L.R. 252 at p.
4. ' Admiralty Action. Admiralty action for salvage services rendered to the ship " M A A K A L T A L A L L A H " . 25 M. Vassiliou, for the plaintiffs. Defendants absent. Cur. adv. vult. The following judgment was delivered by: 30 MALACHTOS, J.: i n this undefended Admiralty Action the plaintiffs claim against the defendant ship "MAA­ K A L T AL A L L A H " as stated in the writ of summons, salvage compensation and/or reasonable and/or equitable compensation and/or remuneration and/or award for sal- 35 vage services rendered to the ship " M A A K A L T AL AL­ L A H " and for expenses incurred out of the salvage opera- 10 tion of the saidship,legalinterest and costsof this action. Thefacts of thecaseappear in theevidence of Christos Kamsaris, master of the salvor ship "KALLIOPI T", which is owned by Commertrader Commercial and Ship5 ping Enterprises Ltd. of Limassol, plaintiff No. 2 in this action. The master of "KALLIOPI T" stated in giving evidence that about midnight of the 16th November, 1976, he was coming from Junie of Lebanon to Cyprus directed to Limassol port and at a distance of about 75 10 miles from Limassol he noticed about three to four miles to his left lights signalling and he realised that there was something afloat which needed help. At once he ordered changeof courseof hisshipandproceeded near thelights where he found out that the lights were coming from the 15 defendant ship. He heard shouts of panic. Men, women and children on board thedefendant ship werein distress. Heasked what washappening and heheard avoicespeaking in English saying: "We havebeen here for three days and nights, the engine of the ship is out of order. If you 20 don't save uswe shall all get lost. We are 36 passengers and the crew". He also asked if the master of the ship could speak English but they told him that he could not and someone from the persons on board the defendant ship acted as an interpreter between him and the master. 25 He further stated that he was told to tow the defendant ship to a safeport in order to saveher, aswell as herpassengers and crew. This he did and at about 2 a.m. of the 17th November, 1976, he started towing the defendant ship towards Limassol. On the way, after the day broke, 30 hesupplied thedefendant shipwith food, medicalsupplies, water and milk and other necessaries. He towed the ship safely to theLimassol portwhere he arrived at 12.30p.m. of the same day. No agreement was made between him and the master of the defendant ship as to his remunera35 tion. The master of "KALLIOPI T" also stated that at the time he started towing the defendant ship he notified the Cyprus Port Authorities and the Port Master of Limassol as to what was happening and he was informed that the defendant ship gave the first signal that she was 40 in danger three days before and they were very pleased that shewasfound because they could not trace her asher wireless was out of order. For this operation the master of "KALLIOPI T" stated that they had more fuel consumption for their ship and damages to ropes. He esti11 1977 Jan. 22 SHIP "KALLIOPI T AND ANOTHER v. SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH" 1977 ,an M · slop LLIOPI T" KALLIOPI ANDANOTHER V. amp "MAAKALT AL ALLAH" 1 mated thevalueof thedefendant shipto about25,000dolIan. The governing considerations in these matters are expounded in Carver Carriage by Sea, 12th edition, volume 2, paras. 830 to 832 and in Kennedy Civil Salvage, 4th 5 edition, Chapter 6,under the heading "Assessment of Salvage Reward". These principles were followed by this Courtinthecaseof TheAttorney-Generalof theRepublic v. M/T Keisserswaard and another[1965] 1C.L.R. 433 and they were summarised in Branco Salvage Ltd. v. The 10 Ship "DEMETRIOS" and her cargoand freight [1968] 1 C.L.R. 252whereatpage262itisstated: "The general principles are that the amount of the reward, unless it is fixed by agreement, is in thediscretion of the Court. The Court, in assessing the re- 15 ward, endeavours to combine liberality to the salvor with justice to the owner of the salved property. It regardsnot merelythe workdoneinthe performance of thesalvageservice,but thegeneral interests of navigation and commerce.Thus it lookswith favour on 20 salvage services rendered by steamships built and maintained for salvage services (35 Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edition, page 749,paragraph 1139). In assessing the reward theCourt takes into account the danger to life, whether on board the salving or 25 the salved vessel, and the danger to property. The value of the salvedproperty is an important consideration in the assessment of reward; but it will not raise thereward out of dueproportion totheservices rendered. If the value is large the amount of the re- 30 ward isusuallyasmallerproportion tothevaluethan if the value is small (ibid.,at page 750, paragraph 1142). Likewise, thevalue of the property employed is also an important element in the assessmentof the reward. It isnot,however,themeasureorlimitof the 35 reward. The risk to which the salving property isexposed by the performance of the salvage service is also an important consideration. The length of the salvage operation is not in general a very important element for consideration, unless the services are 40 dangerous or invoke protracted exertion; though the additional lossor expenseincurred bysalvors byreason of theduration of their servicesistakenintocon12 5 10 15 20 sideration in the assessment of the reward. The la­ bour involved in the salvage service is animportant element only so far as it is accompaniedby the exer­ cise of skill, or by danger, or responsibility (to/d,at pages 751-2, paragraphs 1146 - 8). See also section 34 of our Cap.
5. In assessing the amount of the salvage reward the expenses and losses properly incurred by the salvor in the performance of the salvage services are taken into account (section 24 of our Cap. 298; and 35 Halsbury's Laws, page 752, paragraph 1149). Those losses and expenses may be given in the form of a separate award, but the common practice is to in­ clude it in the general award. Thelosses and expenses which are dealt with in bringing the salvedpro­ perty intoaplace of safety; andexpenses, such asthe cost of repairing damage, and depreciation in value of the salving vessel,caused by the performance of the salvage service (ibid.,at page 752, paragraph 1149)". In thepresent case, taking intoconsideration the above principles andapplying them to the facts andcircumstan­ ces of this case and, particularly, taking into account:— 25 (a) thefact thatthesalvageoperationconsisted mainly in the towing of the defendant ship for a distance of about75 miles totheportof Limassol; (b) thatLimassol was theportof destination of the salvor ship; 30 (c) the degree of danger the defendant ship, her passen­ gersandcrew wererunningatthe time; (d) thefact thatthe salvor ship and her crew did notrun any danger in carrying out thesalvage operation;and (e) thevalue of thedefendantship, 35 I award theglobal sum of C £ 1,250.-(Onethousand two hundred and fifty pounds) as a reasonable award to the plaintiffs. Therefore, therewillbe judgment infavour of plaintiffs 13 1977 Jan. 22 SHIP "KALLIOPI Τ AND ANOTHEI v. SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH" 1977 Jan. 22 SHIP "KALLIOPI T" AND ANOTHER v. SHIP "MAAKALT AL ALLAH" in the sum of C«£1,250.-withlegal interest thereon at4% per annum as from today to final payment with costs to beassessed bytheRegistrar. Needless to saythat the plaintiffs must file an application for appraisement and sale of the defendant ship, which is under arrest at theLimassol portwith all reasonable speed. The warrant of arrest of the defendant ship issued on 18thNovember, 1976,to remain inforce tillfurther order of this Court. Judgment and orderforcosts asabove. 14 10