The English Court of Appeal rendered judgment in the dispute between salvors and the shipowners as to whether a salvage contract on commercial terms had been made in connection with the re-floating of the “Ever Given” in the Suez Canal in March 2021 (SMIT Salvage & Ors v. Luster Maritime SA & Anr (The Ever Given) [2024] EWCA Civ 260).
The appellants, the owners of the ‘Ever Given’, contended that such a contract was concluded, leaving other contractual terms to be agreed at a later stage (although they never were), and that its effect is to preclude a claim for salvage under the International Convention on Salvage 1989 or at common law. The salvors said that no such contract was concluded and that they are therefore able to bring their claim for salvage services rendered, with the quantum of their claim to be determined by the Admiralty Court. The Admiralty judge held that no such contract was concluded. He did so on the ground that although what the parties agreed was capable of amounting to a contract as to the remuneration payable to the salvors for any services which they provided, the parties did not on an objective view intend that agreement to be legally binding until the remaining terms (including as to what services the salvors would provide) were also agreed. See Admiralty Court judgment, dated 30 March 2023, here.
The English Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the owners highlighting that several issues had not been agreed, including “such basic matters as the nature of the services which SMIT would provide, the standard of care which it would be required to exercise, and the payment terms, and left it for future agreement a detailed contract on the Wreckhire 2010 form”. The court found that the owners did not demonstrate an unequivocal intention to be legally bound, based on the parties’ exchanges; that the ultimatums do not undermine the analysis that no binding contract was formed; and that although the urgency to finalize the contract diminished after the remuneration terms were agreed upon, SMIT’s strong position and likelihood of a salvage award defused the urgency, indicating no prior binding agreement on remuneration terms alone. As the court agreed with the Admiralty judge’s conclusion that no binding contract was formed, it found it unnecessary to consider the standard of review on appeal. See Court of Appeal judgment, dated 19 March 2024, here.
De Maribus 