In early December 2001, the respondents hired the claimants to provide tugs to jack up the respondents’ rig, the Key Singapore, in the Eastern Mediterranean. Over the course of the exercise, the weather conditions deteriorated over a number of days and various towlines of the tugs, the Maridive VII, the Maridive 85, and the Baraka I were broken. The rig also sustained damages and the rig team had to be evacuated a number of times. Numerous efforts were made by the tugs Maridive VII, Maridive XIII, Maridive 85, Maridive 94, and Baraka I to reconnect the lines and to pin down the rig. Finally on 11 December 2001, the claimants’ tugs successfully pinned down the rig.

The claimants claimed salvage remuneration from the respondents for the services rendered by the tugs. The respondents’ case was that the circumstances in which the services were rendered did not admit to any claim for salvage, but, if they did, the situation of danger was brought about by the fault of the claimants, thus precluding or restricting their claim for salvage. In doing so, the respondents relied on art 18 of the International Salvage Convention 1989 which states as follows: 'A salvor may be deprived of the whole or part of the payment due under this Convention to the extent that the salvage operations have become necessary or more difficult because of fault or neglect on his part'.

The first arbitrator found that the respondents were at fault in making the decision to commence the tow, but that the claimants were at fault in: (a) failing to equip the Maridive VII with a longer towline; (b) failing to extend the towlines to the maximum possible for the tow; (c) failing to extend the towlines a little from time to time to limit chafing; and (d) failing to ease the strain on the towlines whilst running with or across the weather. He also found that both the claimants and the respondents were at fault in failing to ensure that the flotilla heaved to in due time. The claimants were found to be 40% at fault and their salvage claim was reduced from USD 3 million to USD 1.8 million.

The appeal arbitrator endorsed most of the first arbitrators' findings, but held that the claimants were also at fault in failing to fit their tugs with temporary chafing gear and that the claimants were not at fault in failing to equip the Maridive VII with a longer towline. He found the claimants to be 50% at fault.

The claimants appealed against the arbitrators' findings that those on board the rig and those on board the tugs were equally at fault for the failure to heave to, a conclusion which the claimants argued is contrary to established law concerning the relative responsibilities of tug and tow. In particular, they submitted that since the tow was in overall charge of the move, primary responsibility for the decision whether or not to heave to lay with the rig.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Court found that in assessing whether salvage operations had become necessary because of fault or neglect on the part of the salvors under art 18 of the Convention, one had to assess the causative potency and blameworthiness of the salvors' faults relative to the causative potency and blameworthiness of the rig’s faults.

The Court reviewed cases in relation to the apportionment of faults between salvor and salvee and found that there was no case law to support the claimants’ proposition that overall command of a towage convoy imported with it an enhanced degree of fault in circumstances where both tug and tow had fallen short of their mutual duty to take care.