LLM in Maritime Law (Greece) 2014-2015

Admiralty Law

Module Leader: Professor Anthony Rogers

Subject:

“2. “In the last forty years or so the changes that have taken place in shipping generally and salvage
practice in particular mean that modern salvage as a legal subject would be unrecognisable to Dr
Lushington and the other Victorian Admiralty judges.”

Critically discuss this statement.”

Number of words of subject (including heading): 60

Contents

1) Introduction
2) Salvage - Definition
3) The main elements of salvage
4) The 1910 Salvage Convention and Lloyd’s Open Form
5) The LOF 1980 and the introduction of the “safety net”
6) The 1989 Salvage Convention
7) The LOF 2000 and the SCOPIC clause
8) So, is modern salvage that different to salvage as perceived in the 19th century?
 1) Introduction

Salvage, a unique to maritime law feature, has been evolved and changed during the last century so that
someone could say that modern salvage as a legal subject would be unrecognisable to Dr. Lushington
and the other Victorian Admiralty judges. In order to be able to reach a conclusion on whether we agree
or not with such a statement, we are going to identify the changes that were introduced in admiralty
law with regards to salvage and we will assess if what we call modern salvage diverges from the main
principles of salvage in so much as we may say that it has changed its essence.

2) Salvage - Definition

When we refer to salvage, we may refer to the salvage remuneration or the salvage service itself or
sometimes to the cause of action of salvage1. Salvage was in the ancient times part of the laws of
Rhodes, Rolls of Oleron and Wisby and later on of most maritime laws2. The fundamental though
principles of salvage were well established during the 19th century by Admiralty Court judges, Lord
Lushington, Sir William Scott, Sir Christopher Robinson, Sir Robert Phillimore and Sir John Nicholl3.
Looking into definitions of salvage, we see it can be defined as “allowance, reward or compensation
made to those who have successfully and voluntarily saved maritime property in danger.”4 Section 510,
(2), of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 defines salvage by making reference to the salvor’s expenses it
covers: ”salvage” includes all expenses, properly incurred by the salvor in the performance of the salvage
services” while as Lord Herschell mentions in Wells and Another (Paupers) v The Owners of the Gas Float
Whitton No. 25 the salvage service was confined at the time by Legislature “…to ship apparel and cargo,
or what had formed part of these, and to freight which was being earned by carriage of the cargo.”6

3) The main elements of salvage

Essentially, we can identify the main elements of salvage to be: 1) the danger to a legally recognized
subject of salvage, 2) voluntariness from the part of salvor and 3) a degree of success of the salvage
operation7. Saving of life at sea is not considered as salvage and therefore there is no salvage reward for
only helping people in danger at sea. Lord Lushington repeated8 in the High Court of Admiralty in “The
Johannes”9 in which he considered whether saving life only without saving property outside English
waters would entitle the salvor to claim for salvage in Admiralty Courts, that the legally subject of
salvage is property at sea and not life irrespective on where the rescue took place.

1
Geoffrey Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, Sweet and Maxwell , 2011, 5th Edition, Chapter 1, The Concept of Salvage, par.1-01,
footnote 1
2 Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 3rd Edition, 2009
3
Geoffrey Brice, ibid, par.1-08
4
Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 3rd Edition, 2009
5 [1897] AC 337
6 Ibid at 344
7 Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, Informa Law from Routledge, 2003, 6th Edition, Chapter 8, Salvage, p.335-336
8
Lord Lushington had expressed his view about saving life at sea in The “Zephyrus”, 1 WKob 329
9
167 ER 87
The place of rendering the services was customary another element determining whether the operation
would be treated as salvage or not as salvage should occur in tidal waters10.
The three elements of salvage, danger, voluntariness and success are the ones that distinguish salvage
from other operations that could be considered as acts of rendering assistance at sea such as towage
which was defined by Lord Lushington “as the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of
another when nothing more is required than the acceleration [of] her progress” in “The Princess Alice”11
and wreck removal which may be dangerous for the safe navigation of vessels. As “danger” may be one
factor present in a towage or wreck removal, the fact that these services arise ex contractu and not
voluntarily, distinguish them from salvage. The contractual towage described as “ordinary towage”12 or
as “mere towage service”13 is different than salvage towage which entitles the salvor to remuneration or
reward, entitlement which arises even if a contract does not exist between the salvor and the subject of
salvage14. Of course the reason that such distinction is so important is economical. The salvage reward is
much higher than a simple towage fee. Furthermore, it is recognised by judicial doctrine that salvage
gives rise to a maritime lien, either by continued possession of the salved property or the
commencement of proceedings in rem15. An in rem claim is brought directly against the ship or the
property salved, the res, and survives the change of ownership16. It ensures that the salvor will be paid
ahead of any other creditors and it is discharged only when the res is completely destroyed, it has been
sold through a judicial sale or in the case of forfeiture17.

4) The 1910 Salvage Convention and Lloyd’s Open Form

The international character of the shipping industry led the Comite Maritime International (“CMI”),
established in 1897, to attempt a uniform approach to the subject salvage from its state members. The
discussions for the first Salvage Convention started at the CMI Paris Conference in 1900 and resulted to
the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and
Salvage at Sea, 1910, also known as the 1910 Brussels Convention18.
The 1910 Salvage Convention consists of nineteen Articles and although it largely reflects the English law
at the time, it was not enacted into English law19 .
Art. 1 of the 1910 Convention provides:
“Assistance and salvage of sea-going vessels in danger, or of their cargoes of things on board, of freight
and passage money, as well as similar services rendered by sea-going vessels to vessels of inland
navigation or vice versa, are subject to the following provisions, without any distinction being drawn
between these two kinds of services, and in whatever waters the services have been rendered.”

10
Aleka Mandaraka Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law Volume 2: Managing Risks and Liabilities, Informa Law from Routledge,
2013, 3rd Edition, Chapter 10, Risks and liabilities under salvage, par.4.2
11
(1849) 3 W Rob 139, p.139
12 “The Strathnaver”, (1875) 1 App Cas 58, p.63
13 “The Reward”, (1841) 1 W Rpb 174, p. 117
14 Simon Rainey, The Law of tug and tow offshore contracts, Informa Law from Routledge, 2011, 3rd Edition, Chapter 1, The
Contract of Towage, par. 1.4-1.5
15
Donald Kerr, The Past and Future of “No cure, No Pay”, JMCLQ 2002, 412
16
Jeremy Browne, The extinction of maritime liens, JMCLQ 2003, 361
17
Ibid, 365-367
18
Francesco Berlingiery, International Maritime Conventions Vol II, Informa Law from Routledge, 2014, Chapter 5, International
Convention on Salvage, 1989, par.1
19
F.D. Rose, Case comment, Restitution for inland salvage, LQR 1986, 188
We note therefore that in the 1910 Convention, the terms assistance and salvage were used to cover all
degrees of services rendered to a ship in danger without drawing a line between them20. The
Convention recognizes that salvage services may be rendered in whatever waters (as already mentioned
that was not enacted into English law which was recognizing salvage only in tidal waters21). The element
of danger is a condition for the entitlement of the salvor to a remuneration along with the success of the
service as was mentioned in Article 2: “every act of assistance or salvage which has had a useful result
gives a right to equitable remuneration” and “no remuneration is due if the services rendered have no
beneficial result”22. The Brussels Convention 1910 recognised the principle of “no cure-no pay”, the
basic principle of Lloyd’s Open Form, “LOF”, which is the most commonly used established form of
agreement signed by the salvor and the salve in which they agree that in exchange of the salvage
services both parties agree to remuneration of the salvor to be determined by an arbitration award or
by agreement23. The LOF, officially published in 1908, is not a contract as it does not constitute passing
of consideration, or in other words it is not a promise to exchange one item of value for another – “this
for that” or quid pro quo24. Therefore, it does not affect the voluntariness as condition for characterizing
services provided after signing a LOF as salvage.
5) The LOF 1980 and the introduction of the “safety net”
The LOF has undergone various revisions and the version of LOF published in 1980 introduced the
concept of “safety net” to encourage salvors to assist in casualties which could result in environmental
damage25. Following to significant environmental disasters in 1970s resulting from casualties such as
the Amoco Cadiz, Torre Canyon and Cristos Bias, the Hull and Cargo interests argued that another piece
of maritime property should be added to the traditional vessel, cargo, freight at risk that would be a
fictional piece of property to be preserved representing the environment26. Discussions took place about
introducing what was called “liability salvage” as it was reasonable that incentives should be given to
salvors to take actions to assist in cases of distress when it would not be likely to be remunerated by the
hull and cargo interests under the traditional concept of salvage, but their contribution to avoid an
environmental pollution would be critical. The environmental catastrophe, in particular in the case of a
big tanker vessel may supersede by a lot the monetary value of the vessel and the cargo, a cost that is to
be covered by the liability insurers or in other words, the P&I Clubs27. The P&I Clubs resisted to the idea
of liability salvage and eventually it was agreed to introduce the “safety net” over and above the “no
cure no pay” principle for salvor who would contribute to the protection or minimization of oil pollution.
Under the “safety net”, the salvors are entitled to claim against the shipowners their reasonably
incurred expenses plus an increment of not more than 15 per cent of those expenses depending on the
what the arbitrators will consider fair28. The “safety net” provision can be triggered only when the

20
Francesco Berlingiery, ibid, par.2.2
21
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in “The Goring”, [1988] 2WLR 460, said by refering to section 458 of the 1854 Merchant Shipping
Act: “If the legislature had intended that services rendered in non-tidal inland waters of the UK should also qualify as salvage
services, it would have expressly so provided.”
22
Francesco Berlingiery, ibid, par.3.2
23
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.347
24
Goode Roy, Commercial Law, Penguin UK, 2004, 3rd Edition, p.57
25
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.348
26
Ibid, p.347
27
P&I Clubs stand for Protection and Indemnity Clubs where the members enter as mutually contributing to each other claims
for liabilities to third parties.
28
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.348
salvors’ expenses plus the 15 per cent increment is higher than any salvage award recoverable by the
specific salvage service29. The salvor’s expenses are the out of pocket expenses the salvor incurs for the
service increased by a fair rate for any tugs, crafts, personnel and equipment used by the contractor30.
Furthermore, the “safety net” relates solely to services in relation with the cargo and it does not involve
any salving of bunkers31.

In order for the salvors to be able to claim under the LOF 80 “safety net” the following criteria must be
met32:
1) The subject of the salvage must be a loaded or partially loaded with potentially pollutant oil
tanker vessel
2) The salvor, his servants and agents must not be negligent
3) The salvage services are either not successful or partially successful.

6) The 1989 Salvage Convention

We have already mentioned the incident of the Amoco Cadiz which was wrecked on the coast of France
in March 1978 at the time she was carrying approximately 220,000 metric tons of crude oil. The result
was one of the most serious and major oil pollution accidents. Following to this accident, the
International Maritime Organization prepared a report in September 1978 raising questions about the
existing at the time international law of salvage of the 1910 Brussels Convention and whether it should
be revised to meet the modern shipping industry needs33. In September 1979 the CMI set up an
international subcommittee to revisit the subject of salvage to be discussed in the conference of the CMI
in Montreal in May 198134. After several meetings and discussions including all parties in interest, ship
owners, salvage companies, insurers, P&I Clubs, the new Salvage Convention was adopted on 28th of
April 1989 and came into force in the United Kingdom on 1st of January 1995, being incorporated in the
Mercant Shipping Act 199535. The Convention aims to provide better protection to the environment and
to encourage salvage operations36.
Article 1 of the 1989 Convention defines salvage as “any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or
any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever.” It keeps the spirit
of the corresponding definition of the 1910 Convention but it eliminates the fact that vessels only would
render salvage services. It also substitutes the “assistance and salvage” used in the Brussels Convention
with only “salvage”37.
Property is defined as “any property not permanently and intentionally attached to the shoreline and
including freight at risk”.

29
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.348
30
Ibid, p.348
31
Ibid, p.348
32
Ibid, p.348
33
Francesco Berlingiery, ibid, Chapter 5, International Convention on Salvage, 1989, par. 1
34
Ibid
35
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.351
36
Ibid
37
Francesco Berlingiery, ibid, par. 2.2.1
During the travaux preparatoires discussions had taken place about introducing “liability of salvage” but
eventually it was deemed preferably to follow only the “safety net” principle38. “Damage to the
environment” is defined as “substantial physical damage to human health or to marine life or resources
in coastal or inland waters or areas adjacent thereto, caused by pollution, contamination, fire, explosion
or similar major events”.
Articles 6 and 7 deal with the exercising of undue influence by the part of salvors to agree under the
circumstances of danger unreasonably favourable terms with a Master39. Although the Convention
leaves room to the parties to agree on their own terms the salvage services under a contract, if its terms
are inequitable or if the payment under the contract is either too large or too small for the actual
services, the contract may be nullified or modified40.
The Convention provides that the Master (or the owners) has authority to “conclude such contracts on
behalf of the owners of the property on board the vessel” reminding that the Master has clear authority
in all cases to enter into a salvage contract on behalf of the owners of the property on board which was
tended to be forgotten the last years prior the Convention41.
Article 8 emphasizes the importance of co-operation between the salvee and the salvor and includes the
duty of care of the salvor to carry out the salvage operations and to prevent or minimize damage to the
environment42. The consequences of the salvor’s misconduct are included in article 18 and he may be
deprived of the whole or part of the remuneration due under the Convention if he has contributed to
the need of salvage or if salvage has become more difficult because of fault or neglect of his part. If he
has been guilty of fraud he will lose the right to claim an award43.
Of course the Master’s of a ship duty to render assistance for those who are in danger at sea is
preserved in the Convention44. Article 11 refers to the obligation of a Contracting State party to take
into account the necessary co-operation between the different parties of the salvage operation, the
salvors, other interested parties and public authorities to ensure smooth and successful salvage
operations, article 12 underlines the “no cure no pay” principle and article 13 includes the factors that
must be taken into account when fixing a salvage award45. One new factor that was introduced is the
skill and efforts of the salvors in preventing or minimizing damage to the environment, although in
arbitration for fixing an award by reason of Clause 1 (a) of the LOF 80 the escape of oil at sea or its
prevention would be factored in46. In article 13 (2) it is also included that the rewards shall be in
proportion of the salved values and article 13 (3) includes that the rewards shall not exceed the salved
value of the salved objects, ship and other property47. Article 16 deals with salving life at sea without
changing the principle that no award is to be paid for saving life only, article 17 maintains the
voluntariness of the salvor and it does not recognised as salvage services rendered under a pre existing
of the danger contract, article 19 provides that no award will be paid if the Master and or owner
expressly and reasonably have refused salvage assistance, article 20 preserves the salvor’s right to

38
Ibid
39
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.351
40
Ibid
41
Ibid
42
Ibid
43
Aleka Mandaraka, Modern Admiralty Law with Risk Management Aspects, Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2001, Chapter 13,
Salvage, p.706
44
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.353
45
Ibid
46
Ibid
47
Ibid
exercise a maritime lien for the payment of his award, article 21 emphasizes that the salved property
may not be moved by the safe place it was taken without the consent of the salvor prior adequate
security for his claim has been in place and article 22 provides for an interim payment as is “just and
fair” and article 23 puts a time bar of two years for any claim for salvage commencing on the day when
the salvage was terminated48.
The article that introduces the environmental protection and the special compensation for preventing or
minimizing damage to the environment is article 1449.
Article 14 (1) entitles the salvor to special compensation where he has carried out salvage operations on
a vessel which either by itself or by the risk of its cargo escaping in the environment threaten the
environment50. Although the salvor is entitled to this special compensation either if his services are
successful and he prevents or minimizes the effect to the environment or not, the compensation will be
higher if he does succeed51. Article 14 (2) provides that the salvage award may be increased up to a
maximum of 30 per cent of the expenses incurred by the salvor52. Condition for the entitlement to the
special remuneration is that the salvor is not entitled to the salvage award of article 13 or that the
special remuneration is at least equal to the salvage award53. Article 14, extends the logic for
remuneration of the “safety net” as the latter is limited to tankers laden (full or partially) by oil and it
does not cover any other type of vessels and cargoes which can be equally pollutant in case of an
accident54. It also worth mentioning that the special remuneration is payable only by the shipowner55.
This makes sense as the shipowner is held liable for any pollution occurred and if he is relieved by such a
liability or if the salvor has helped (or tried to help) minimizing such liability he is the one to reward the
salvor for his services that he benefited from.

7) The LOF 2000 and the SCOPIC clause

An important (modern) case concerning articles 13 and 14 of the 1989 International Salvage Convention
as incorporated in LOF 90 was the “Nagasaki Spirit”56. Following to a collision with another container
vessel on 19th of September 1992 in the Straits of Malacca, part of her crude oil cargo, 12,000 tons, was
released into the sea and cought fire. Semco Salvage were contracted to provide salvage services to the
vessel and her cargo on the terms of LOF 90. The salvors extinguished the fire and they were ordered by
the Malaysian police to tow the vessel out to sea. At anchorage off Belawan in Indonesia, the salvors
transferred the remaining on board cargo to another vessel and delivered the vessel to her owners. In
arbitration, the award against the shipowners and bunker owners was USD 6,913,117 and special
compensation under Article 14(3) was USD 7,658,117. The fair increment under Article 14(2) was
decided to be an increment of 65 of the sum and the total amount would be USD 12,635,893 and that as
he would have made an award of USD 9.5 million if the shipowners, the cargo and bunkers owners were
all before him he awarded the salvors USD 3,135,893. The appeal arbitrator set aside the award and he

48
Ibid
49
Ibid
50
Ibid
51
Ibid
52
Ibid
53
Ibid
54
Ibid
55
Ibid
56
[1997] 1 LLR 323
held that if all interested parties were before him, he would have made an award of 10,750,000. The
award against the shipowners and bunker owners was made of USD 7,322,737, the special
compensation under Article 14(3) in the sum of USD 5,216,404.20, the increment under Article 14(2) as
65 per cent of that sum or USD 8,607,066.90 which was less than the award and under Article 14(4) no
special compensation was allowed. The main question that was raised and eventually reached the
House of Lords was the definition of expenses in Article 14(3) and what “a fair rate for equipment and
personnel actually and reasonably used in the salvage operations” meant. The House of Lords decided
that a fair rate for equipment and personnel actually and reasonably used in the salvage operations
meant only a fair rate of expenditure without including any element of profit. As Lord Mustill said57:
“The promoters of the Convention did not choose, as they might have done, to create an entirely and
distinct category of environmental salvage, which would finance the owners of vessels and gear them in
readiness simply for the purpose of preventing damage to the environment…the right of special
compensation depends on the performance of “salvage operations”…The only structural change in the
scheme is that the incentive is now made more attractive by the possibility of obtaining new financial
recognition for conferring a new type of incidental benefit. Important as it is, the remedy under Article 14
is subordinate to the reward under Article 13, and its functions should not be confused by giving a
character to closely to salvage.”
That decision left the salvors able to claim only their expenses unless an increment was granted under
Article 14(2). The P&I Clubs were concerned that this decision would motivate the salvors to dragging
the salvage services resulting in lengthy and costly litigation afterwards58. Therefore, it was in the
interest of all parties involved to agree such a mechanism that would motivate a salvor to proceed to a
casualty, whether or not there was a threat of environmental damage, as he would be sure he would
recover remuneration in any case. Such remuneration had to be assessed to be sensible from a
commercial point of view and not be only a reimbursement of expenditure59.
The result of the discussions between the P&I Clubs and the salvage companies was the introduction of
the “special compensation protection and indemnity clause” commonly referred to as SCOPIC
incorporated in LOF 200060.
In principal, SCOPIC provides a standard method of calculation of the salvor’s remuneration without the
need to prove a threat to the environment. The SCOPIC involves tariff rates under clause 5 that are
included in Appendix A and to these fixed rates are added actual occurred expenditure and a fixed
increment rate of 25 per cent instead of the increment under Article 14 which may vary between 30 and
100 per cent61. The contractor has to invoke SCOPIC in writing62. After invoking SCOPIC, the provisions of
Article 13 of the 1989 Convention continue to be in effect63. Remuneration under SCOPIC is available
when the salvage under Article 13 is not greater than the remuneration under SCOPIC64. Moreover,
clause 7 of SCOPIC provides that in the case SCOPIC has been invoked and the salvage award under
Article 13 is greater than the remuneration under SCOPIC, the contractor agrees that he will receive the
award under Article 13 discounted by 25 per cent of the difference between the Article 13 remuneration

57
Ibid at 332
58
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.365
59
Geoffrey Brice, Salvage and the role of the insurer, LMCLQ 2014
60
Ibid, p.30
61
Ibid, p.32
62
Ibid, p.32
63
Ibid, p.33
64
Ibid, p.33
and the SCOPIC remuneration. On the other hand, as soon as the salvor invokes SCOPIC, the ship owner
(usually through his P&I Club), who is the only party that contributes to SCOPIC remuneration, has two
working days in order to provide to the salvor security for the amount of USD 3 million, an amount to be
later adjusted accordingly to the case65. The shipowner may terminate the salvage services by giving five
days’ notice66.
It is apparent that SCOPIC includes some pros and cons to both the salvors and the shipowners in an
attempt to balance the fairness in their between cooperation in case of a casualty. On the one hand the
salvors do not have to show environmental threat, they know in advance the rate they will be
compensated and they are immediately put in a secure position (within two working days)67. On the
other hand, whatever is the contribution of the salvor to safeguarding the environment he cannot
receive a higher remuneration and they are exposed to the shipowner’s right to terminate the service68.
The shipowner, from his side may exercise at his discretion the right of termination and he knowns in
advance what the operation will cost69.
The LOF 2000 that incorporates the SCOPIC, also extends the right of termination of the salvage services
to the contractor in (G) when “there is no longer any prospect of the contractor becoming entitled to an
adequate salvage reward in accordance with Convention Articles 12 and/or 13 because it appears that
the salved value of the property will be exceeded by the costs to the contractor of fulfilling the
obligations hereunder…”. The provision (H) is also a new one determining that the salvage services have
come to an end when the salved property is preserved and taken to a safe place subject to two
conditions, i) that it is not required by any harbor or government authority to stay and ii) that no
services are still required to prevent additional damage to the salved property70.

8) So, is modern salvage that different to salvage as perceived in the 19th century?

We have now seen the changes that were introduced to salvage since the time of the Admiralty judges
in the 19th century and in particular the changes that were introduced during the last forty years.
Therefore, we are ready to go back to our initial question on whether what we may call modern salvage
is so different than the salvage of the 19th century.
It is true that two out of the three main elements of salvage, danger, voluntariness, success, have
changed. The element of voluntariness has in some degree been affected by the agreements or salvage
contracts. However, under the 1989 Salvage Convention, although the possibility of a salvage contract is
recognised, the salvage service may still be rendered without the existence of a contract. The concept of
voluntariness in my opinion has not changed it has simply be enhanced. If a sea going ship in the open
ocean receives a signal of distress from another sea going ship and voluntarily responds to her need of
assistance and later on claims for salvage for the successful operation, the case would meet the salvage
conditions and the vessel that assisted will be entitled to salvage remuneration. The fact that nowadays
the professional salvage companies exist and the law has changed in order to adapt the shipping
industry’s needs does not necessarily means that the additional conditions or changes to salvage have
changed its essence.

65
Christopher Hill, ibid, p.365
66
ibid
67
ibid
68
ibid
69
Ibid, p.366-367
70
Ibid, p.367
Similar to this, the other element that has been modified is the reward to the salvors in the case of
prevention of an environmental pollution. As the environmental pollution was not a topic that would
trouble the states and societies before the 20th century, it was natural that such a benefit of the
common good was not included in the salvage concept before then. Following to the gigantism though
of the vessels and the size of the consequences to the environment including the coastal economy of a
casualty, it was only a matter of time until the environmental protection would become a subject of
salvage with the introduction of the “safety net” in LOF 1980. The salvage companies would need an
incentive to assist to the prevention of catastrophic oil pollution events. If you think about it, the
“salvage of the environmental pollution” is of equally importance to the ship owners as the salvage of
their ship if not greater in monetary terms as it may cost to their liabilities insurers a lot more than a
total loss may cost to their hull insurers. When usually the total coverage by the P&I Clubs in the events
of pollution is up to one billion dollars, it can only be considered as fair to reward a salvor that assists to
prevent such pollution. The reward in the case of prevention of pollution seems more like an addition
that follows salvage’s concept that the salvor is entitled to an award for his services by the parties that
benefited by the salvage service by just adding the newly appeared subject of salvage to the traditional
ones, ship, cargo and freight at risk which is equally important to the rest from an economic perspective.
As for the introduction of the SCOPIC clause that changes the “no cure no pay” principle, is an additional
commercial tool essential to provide motivation to the salvage industry to provide its services in any
case of casualty and it works concurrently with the traditional salvage remuneration as remuneration
under SCOPIC is not payable unless if it is greater than the salvage award. It is true that as mentioned
above, modern salvors are professionals with high running expenses, employing personnel and
maintaining tugs and equipment that they depend on less and less cases of salvage every year as a result
of the safety improvements with the introduction of modern technology and international safety
regulations. There should be therefore a degree of reinsurance to the salvors that they will get at least
something (pre-determined) for their efforts. That is what the SCOPIC clause is for the salvors. Its
existence does not change the salvage concept it only gives another incentive to the salvors to act and it
may be said that it actually preserves their existence.
Since the introduction of these changes to salvage, there are different views on how modern salvage has
diverted from salvage as it was known in the 19th century. Some people predicted that the governments’
intervention in salvage in their coastal waters for the prevention of pollution would be inevitable71.
Some thought that actually a government agency equipped with the powers necessary to step in
alongside the private salvor and to provide with the necessary salvage equipment would be helpful to
the salvage companies since the 1989 Convention (Articles 9 and 11) already acknowledges the broad
powers of coastal trades to act and cooperate with the salvors when the circumstances require to do
so72. Some argued that the law of contracts prevails to the equitable character of the law applied to
salvage as formed in the Admiralty courts in the 19th century as most salvage operations are performed
under salvage contracts which makes modern salvage to bear little resemblance to the salvage of the
past73. However, on the other hand, it is evident that the Admiralty cases are still relevant to the law
today74.

71
Donald Kerr, The Past and Future of “No cure, No Pay”, JMCLQ 2002, 424
72 Bevan Marten, Third-party agreements in the salvage context, LMCLQ 2014, p.509-510
73 Olivia Lennox-King, Laying the mark to port and starboard: Salvage under duress and economic duress at contract law,
(2007) 21 Aust & NZ Mar LJ, p.42, 62-64
74 Ibid, p.64
To conclude, my guess would be that Lord Lushington and his other fellows Admiralty judges would be
surprised with the developments of modern shipping but the changes that took place in salvage in order
to adopt and reflect the current commercial reality would not make it unrecognizable in their eyes. Most
likely, they would include in their judges what we consider as modern salvage law as introduced by the
1989 Convention or the recent forms of LOF, including the SCOPIC clause, prior their introduction.
Although, it is a matter of point of view on whether someone agrees or not that modern salvage has
diverted so much from salvage principles as formulated in 19th century common law, we may say that
the law and in particular the maritime law has to continuously change to catch up with the current at
each time developments of the particular area it deals with but such changes may follow up the
progress made without diverting from the original essence and philosophy. The subjects and elements
of modern salvage may have expanded and they now include new ones but these changes have
occurred only in order to reinforce the doctrine of salvage instead of changing it because that is to use
the words of Lord Atkin in “The Kafiristan”75, “the encouragement to vessels at sea to render salvage
services”.

75
Beaverford, The (Owners) v The Kafiristan (Owners), [1938] AC 136 at 141
Bibliography

Books
- Geoffrey Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, Sweet and Maxwell , 2011, 5th Edition
- Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law 3rd Edition, 2009
- Christopher Hill, Maritime Law, Informa Law from Routledge, 2003, 6th Edition
- Aleka Mandaraka Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law Volume 2: Managing Risks and Liabilities,
Informa Law from Routledge, 2013, 3rd Edition
- Aleka Mandaraka, Modern Admiralty Law with Risk Management Aspects, Cavendish Publishing
Limited, 2001
- Simon Rainey, The Law of tug and tow offshore contracts, Informa Law from Routledge, 2011,
3rd Edition
- Francesco Berlingiery, International Maritime Conventions Vol II, Informa Law from Routledge,
2014
- Goode Roy, Commercial Law, Penguin UK, 2004, 3rd Edition

Journals

- Donald Kerr, The Past and Future of “No cure, No Pay”, JMCLQ 2002
- Jeremy Browne, The extinction of maritime liens, JMCLQ 2003
- F.D. Rose, Case comment, Restitution for inland salvage, LQR 1986
- Geoffrey Brice, Salvage and the role of the insurer, LMCLQ 2014
- Bevan Marten, Third-party agreements in the salvage context, LMCLQ 2014
- Olivia Lennox-King, Laying the mark to port and starboard: Salvage under duress and economic
duress at contract law, (2007) 21 Aust & NZ Mar LJ

Cases

- Wells and Another (Paupers) v The Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No. 2, [1897] AC 337
- “The Johannes”, 167 ER 87
- “The Zephyrus”, 1 WKob 329
- “The Princess Alice”, (1849) 3 W Rob 139
- “The Strathnaver”, (1875) 1 App Cas 58
- “The Reward”, (1841) 1 W Rpb 174
- “Nagasaki Spirit”, [1997] 1 LLR 323
- Beaverford, The (Owners) v The Kafiristan (Owners), [1938] AC 136 at 141