The appellant commercial salvors used their salvage vessel to free a yacht chartered by the respondents, which was grounded on 28 June 2018 on the IJsselmeer. After the yacht was pulled free, a charterer (and master) of the yacht signed a salvage agreement which did not contain any amount for the salvage reward, but did contain the times of sailing of the salvage vessel (11h40), commencement of the salvage (11h45), conclusion of the salvage (12h10), and the return to port (12h40). The appellants claimed EUR 2,500 as a salvage reward. At first instance, the Judge granted them EUR 350. The appellants appealed.

Held: Appeal partly allowed.

The respondents dispute that the assistance amounted to salvage; it was towage at the most.

There was some degree of danger, thus meeting the threshold for application of arts 8:551 ff of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) (implementing art 1 of the Salvage Convention 1989). After running aground, the two charterers of the yacht first asked the harbourmaster of a nearby marina for help by phone. The harbourmaster referred them to the Coast Guard Royal Life Boat Association (KNMR), who informed them that their station at Workum would be alerted. Another yacht also reported that the respondents' yacht had run aground, following which the Rijkswaterstaat (Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management) filled in an SOS form. The form stated that the report was shared with the Coast Guard Centre (KWC), which alerted the KNMR Hindeloopen, and that the appellants’ salvage vessel had received the message and would be on scene within two minutes. It has not been established that the yacht could have released itself within a foreseeable time. Therefore, external assistance was required. The wind force, according to the SOS form, was 4, rising to 5. From photos taken at the time of the salvage operation, it appears that the waves were showing foam crests. It is plausible that, if no assistance had been provided, damage to the yacht was likely if it remained grounded on the hard sandy bottom.

The yacht was thus in a somewhat dangerous situation. A request for (emergency) assistance was made, which assistance was then offered by the appellants and accepted verbally by the charterer/master and subsequently, after the assistance had been successfully provided, confirmed in writing in an salvage agreement signed by him. Pursuant to art 8:1010, read together with art 8:563.3 of the DCC, the shipowner is liable for the salvage reward due (see art 13.2 of the Salvage Convention 1989). The master's authority to bind the owner applies if there was a salvage operation within the meaning of the national law/Salvage Convention; see art 6.2 of the Convention, which also applies to the salvage of inland vessels on inland waterways. The respondents, as owners of the yacht, are therefore bound by the salvage agreement. Since the agreement does not stipulate the amount of the remuneration, a reasonable reward is due under art 8:561, read together with art 8:563.1 of the DCC. The respondents cannot void the salvage agreement on the grounds of mistake or fraud. The appellants were not required to inform the respondents of the statutory obligation to pay a reasonable salvage reward, nor were they under a duty to inform the respondents of the free/less expensive salvage assistance provided by the KNMR.

Pursuant to art 8:563.2 of the DCC (implementing art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989), the reward shall be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage assistance, taking into account the criteria mentioned in that provision. Accordingly, the reward in this case is fixed at EUR 1,000.