This case involved assistance rendered by Balance Shipping BV (the plaintiff) via its vessel Balance to the barge Wiljaco F6, belonging to R Fransbergen Holding BV (the defendant). On 30 January 2021, the sand-laden Wiljaco F6 was moored in a gravel pit in the Gerelingsplas Lake against other barges. The Wiljaco F6 broke loose from its anchors, due to the rising water from the Meuse River entering the gravel pit, and drifted through a breached dyke onto the Meuse River together with the other barges.

The Balance was in the port of Roermond. At 13h35 the lock keeper informed the Balance about the drifting barges. The Balance went to assist and left the port at 13h38. Several hundred metres above the Roermond marina, the Balance saw the deep-lying and uncrewed Wiljaco F6 approaching it, drifting on a strong current. The Balance navigated against the current towards the Wiljaco F6. At 13h46 the Balance managed to secure the Wiljaco F6 alongside, but the mooring line broke due to the speed of the current and the mass of the Wiljaco F6. The Wiljaco F6 continued to drift downriver. The Wiljaco F6 sustained damage to its side/bow as a result of contact with the bridge pier of the Louis Raemaekers Bridge. Thereafter, the barge, lying slanted in the water as a result of the collision with the bridge, drifted quickly on the strong current towards the Roermond barrage dam, several hundred metres downstream.

Going astern, the Balance manoeuvred itself alongside the Wiljaco F6 at 13h59. The Balance then managed to get the barge through the starboard opening of the barrage dam. During this process the Balance sustained damage. At approximately 14h07 the Balance, still going astern, followed the Wiljaco F6 through the barrage dam. After impact with a concrete wall near the barrage, the Wiljaco F6 floated towards the Buggenum railway bridge. Several hundred metres ahead of the railway bridge, the Balance managed to manoeuvre itself alongside the barge and slow it down. At 14h15 the Balance was able to stop the barge against the right bank of the river Maas and keep it under control in the strong current. At about 14h20 the small tug/push boat Willem attached itself to the Wiljaco F6, but proved to have insufficient power to keep the barge under control. By 14h34 the push boat Danique F took the place of the Willem. Around 14h45 the Balance continued on its journey.

On 8 July 2021, the defendant's insurers paid the plaintiff (under protest) an amount of EUR 22,500 as reimbursement of expenses and a reward. The plaintiff sought a higher salvage reward from the defendant and claimed EUR 70,000 for the reward, damages, and costs. The defendant counterclaimed for EUR 6,708.68 as overpaid reward.

Held: A salvage award of EUR 30,000 is fair and equitable in this case.

Salvage operations which have had a useful result give right to a reward. Salvage operations include any act or activity undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters or in any other waters whatsoever. There is danger when there is a situation of imminent loss or serious harm, from which the ship cannot save itself without outside help. Even a relatively small degree of danger can be sufficient to accept the existence of danger (Hoge Raad 9 February 1996, Frio Alaska, CMI141).

Applying the criteria of art 8:563 of the Dutch Civil Code (which incorporates art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989) leads to the following:

(a) The salved value of the Wiljaco F6 is between EUR 89,000 and EUR 123,000, considering the damage that was sustained during the salvage operation.

(b) There has been no prevention or minimisation of damage to the environment.

(c) The salvage operation was only partially successful. Because of the Balance, the barge did not collide with the barrage and the Buggenum railway bridge. However, the Balance failed to prevent the Wiljaco F6 from colliding with the Louis Raemaekers Bridge and the concrete wall near the barrage.

(d) There was a risk of collision with the barrage and, subsequently, a danger of shipping delays. Regarding a collision with the barrage/railway bridge, there was a small chance of damage to the railway bridge and the sinking of the barge.

(e) The Balance is not the type of vessel appropriate for the rendered salvage operations. It undeniably took courage for a container ship like the Balance to sail astern and come to the aid of the (unexpectedly deep-lying) Wiljaco F6, which was carried along by a strong current and was faced with all sorts of obstacles along the way.

(f) The salvage operation lasted 1 hour and 20 minutes, during which time the Balance manoeuvred very intensely and sailed backwards for about 30 minutes. The plaintiff incurred EUR 11,340 in damages and costs.

(g) The Balance was risking a fiasco, its own damage, claims, and liabilities.

(h) The Balance rendered assistance within minutes.

(i) and (j) The Balance is not a professional salvage vessel, so these criteria do not apply.

When fixing the reward, previous judgments of Dutch courts in salvage cases have been considered, and the effect of monetary devaluation in recent years has been factored in. On top of the reward, an amount of EUR 11,340 in incurred expenses and sustained damages is allowed. The claim for a salvage reward does not relate to any of the situations in which the Decree on compensation for extrajudicial collection costs (Besluit vergoeding voor buitengerechtelijke incassokosten) applies. In the absence of any substantiation by the plaintiff regarding the basis for its claim for payment of extrajudicial costs, this claim is rejected.