This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Bordeaux Court of Appeal, 6 June 1991. The ship Heidberg, which was owned by Partenreederei M/S Heidberg, of which Mr Y and Arend X were the partners, and was managed by Vega Freidrich Dauber, hit and damaged a wharf located in Pauillac and belonging to Petroleum Shell. The ship was carrying a cargo of corn that was damaged during the accident. The cargo insurer was Assurances Mutuelles Agricole, known as Groupama.

Petroleum Shell had been authorised to proceed with the arrest of the vessel in order to provide security for the damages suffered by it. On 17 April 1991, Groupama obtained the same authorisation for arrest as security for the payment of a sum of FRF 1,850,000. The President of the Commercial Court, by an order of 23 April 1991, maintained the arrest of the vessel.

The judgment held that the ship was subject to general average regarding a claim for assistance from the towing company, and that the contribution that was due from the cargo interests following the event amounted to the sum of FRF 400,000. On appeal it was argued that, while general average is borne, in part, by the cargo, and while the insurer has a right of recourse against the person to whom the fault is attributable, this possibility of recourse does not, in itself, constitute a maritime claim within the meaning of article 1.1 g of the Arrest Convention 1952.

Held: Cassation.

Considering arts 29-33 of the Law of 7 July 1967 relating to maritime occurrences, in order to decide that Groupama 'did indeed justify an assistance claim' and to consequently reject the request for the release of the protective seizure of the vessel, the Court of Appeal confined itself to holding that the salvage of the vessel and its cargo was remunerated and that the insurer had vouched for the payment of any compensation which might be due to the towing company. By ruling thus, without explaining the legal consequences of the fact that, in determining the amount of the salvage award, 30% of the 'CAF value' of the goods insured by Groupama had been included as a contribution to general average, and in particular without explaining whether the general average guarantee had been called upon, and whether, in addition, the insurer had contributed to maritime salvage beyond what had to be supported by the cargo, the Court of Appeal deprived its decision of a legal basis.

For these reasons, the judgment under appeal is struck down and annulled in its entirety. The case and the parties are returned to the position they were in before the aforementioned judgment, and the case is referred to the Rouen Court of Appeal to be decided correctly.