The plaintiff, Baltic Captain Shipping Co Ltd (Baltic), was the owner of the Baltic Captain I (Baltic Captain), which was operated by Interorient Navigation Co Ltd (Interorient). The defendants, Blessey Marine Services Inc and Blessey Enterprises Inc (Blessey), owned and operated the Thomas E Rollins (Rollins). The Baltic Captain was grounded when it crossed the Texas City Channel. At the time of the grounding, the Baltic Captain was fully loaded with low sulphur vacuum gas oil (VGO). The primary cause of the grounding was because of Rollins’ violation of r 9 of the Inland Navigation Rules Act 1980. Interorient entered into a Lloyd's Open Form Salvage Agreement Contract (LOF) with Titan Maritime LLC (Titan) for the salvage of the Baltic Captain. Then Interorient reached a settlement with Titan and paid Titan USD 1,780,000 for its salvage services. The plaintiff sought to recover the settlement amount, legal fees and additional damages it claimed to have incurred as a result of the grounding.

Held: The plaintiff's settlement amount of USD 1,780,000 was reasonable.

The Court assessed the relative fault of the plaintiff at 30% and the relative fault of the defendants at 70%.

Regarding the settlement amount, art 13 of the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (the Salvage Convention 1989) provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the appropriate value of a salvage operation.

The first factor is the value of the salvaged vessel. In this case, the Baltic Captain had an agreed valuation of USD 39,000,000.

The second factor is the skill and efforts of the salvor in preventing or minimising harm to the environment. The plaintiff's solicitors recognised that Titan completed the refloating of the Baltic Captain, including lightering 3000 tons of VGO at a water location away from the normal discharge facility without any damage to the environment.

The third factor is the measure of salvor's success. It was undisputed that Titan successfully refloated the Baltic Captain. The refloating was accomplished in approximately two days and without any damage to the vessel.

The fourth factor is the nature and degree of the danger. The danger to the vessel and to the environment resulted primarily from the Baltic Captain resting only partially on soft mud instead of having the full length of the vessel resting on the mud. This placed undue stresses on the vessel. In addition, the location of the Baltic Captain aground at the confluence of three waterways created a safety risk from traffic in the area.

The fifth factor involves the skill and effort of the salvor in conducting the salvage operation. During the salvage and settlement negotiations, Titan appeared to have been quite skilled in salvage operations.

The sixth factor is the time and expense of the salvage operation. The salvage operation lasted only a little more than two days. The total expense of the operation was approximately USD 300,000. This amount was the expense element of the method of calculating compensation for a salvage operation.

The seventh factor is the risk of liability and other risks run by the salvor or its equipment. In this case, the risk was negligible because Titan used equipment obtained from other companies.

The eighth factor is the promptness of the services rendered. The refloating was handled promptly and that time was of the essence because, in a tanker grounding, the situation usually only gets worse as more time goes by.

The ninth factor is the availability and use of vessels or other equipment. It was difficult to obtain the necessary equipment and vessels in the aftermath of the hurricane. Titan in fact obtained equipment from different companies.

The tenth is the state of readiness and efficiency of the salvor's equipment. Titan had provided efficient support vessels, staff and personnel. Additionally, Titan’s ability to perform the salvage operation successfully and promptly was viewed as evidence of its readiness and efficiency.

Having reviewed the evaluation of these factors, the Court found that the settlement amount was reasonable under the unique circumstances presented in this case.