This was an appeal from the judgment of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court (13 March 2019, 2016/377 - 2019/121).

The plaintiff claimed that the MV Okaliptus, flying the Turkish flag, registered in the port of Izmir and owned by the defendants, issued a distress signal due to machinery failure on its voyage to Bodrum, Türkiye, from Kos Island, Greece. The MV Okaliptus, which was allegedly exposed to danger, was cast a towrope by the MV Lawyer, owned by the plaintiff, and was towed to the Port of Bodrum until it was safely anchored and rescued, together with its crew members.

The plaintiff claimed that the master of a ship had entered into a salvage and rescue agreement, and upon completion of the successful operation, was required to pay the salvor's salvage reward. Such a salvage and rescue operation was particularly mentioned in the marine accident report issued by the master. As a result, the plaintiff asked the Court to order the defendants to pay the plaintiff salvage remuneration of TRY 600,000 plus interest.

The defendant claimed that the operation provided by the MV Lawyer should be evaluated by the Court to determine whether it fell within art 1298.1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC) on salvage operations [based on art 1 of International Convention on Salvage 1989 - Türkiye became a party to the Convention in 2013], which provides that salvage operations are defined as 'any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or any other waters whatsoever'.

The defendant also argued that the salvage reward requested from the plaintiff needed to be evaluated by an expert appointed by the Court to determine the actual appraised value of the salved ship. The defendant further argued that any salvage reward amount should be claimed from all the ownership interests in the rescued ship, based on their liability proportion in shares.

The other defendants claimed that the plaintiff's claims were unjustified, baseless, and malicious. The plaintiff's salvage claim was collusive because a salvage reward can only be requested based on certain conditions such as marine peril, ie danger to the vessel, the approval of the master, and a beneficial or successful outcome which must be achieved following the operation. However, the defendants argued that none of the aforementioned conditions were met. As a consequence, the other defendants requested the dismissal of the case from the Court of first instance.

The Court of first instance observed that weather reports on the day of the incident showed that there were no sea or weather conditions which could endanger the MV Okaliptus, and since the machinery failure occurred only 2 nm after the ship left Kos Island, the master's decision to sail to the Port of Bodrum, which was 10 nm away, should not be considered the wisest decision. The Court also found that the time when the MV Lawyer aupposedly provided a towrope did not coincide with the radio records obtained from the Directorate of Coastal Safety. The Court further found that the affidavit provided by Riva Shipyard indicated that after the MV Okaliptus sailed to port of Bodrum, it was taken to the shipyard by its own means in order for the machinery problem to be fixed.

Consequently, the Court held that it had not been proven that a rescue situation existed in the proceedings, and that the MV Okaliptus was not exposed to real danger in the incident pursuant to art 1298 of the TCC. Thus, the assistance provided by the MV Lawyer to the MV Okaliptus should be considered as being a towage operation, not a salvage operation, and the plaintiff was entitled to a towage fee. The claim should thus be accepted partially in the sum of TRY 954,87 plus interest.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the master is authorised to sign a salvage contract on behalf of the vessel owner according to art 1300 of TCC [which is based on art 6.2 of the Salvage Convention 1989]; however, The Supreme Court also referred to art 1301 of TCC [which is based on art 7 of the Salvage Convention 1989], which provides that:

A contract or any terms thereof may be annulled or modified if:

(a) the contract has been entered into under undue influence or the influence of danger and its terms are inequitable; or

(b) the payment under the contract is, to an excessive degree, too large or too small for the services rendered.

With reference to the abovementioned article, the Supreme Court found the plaintiff's appeal request unjustified.