This was an appeal from the judgment of the Commercial Court of first instance (7 March 2016, 2014/1425-2016/94 ).

The plaintiff argued that an explosion on 20 January 2014 occurred on the Turkish-flagged vessel MV Tibil, and that the vessel was in danger of sinking. In particular, the ship and its crew were rescued by the plaintiff's immediate response to the explosion with tugboats and other vessels. Upon the urgent request of the captain of MV Tibil, the plaintiff's vessels approached the ship, and a cooling operation was undertaken by spraying foam agent, by which a second explosion was prevented. The crew of the vessel was rescued and the body of the crew member who died due to the explosion was carried away by speedboat. The fees and expenses related to the salvage operation were not paid by the defendant.

The plaintiff claimed that apart from the plaintiff's fleet, no other vessel in Tuzla could respond to the fire. It took over an hour for the Coastal Safety Police to arrive in the region and act on the situation. Consequently, the plaintiff claimed to be a salvor and asked the Court to order the defendant to pay the fees and expenses related to the salvage operation. The plaintiff referred to art 1352.c of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC), and argued that its salvage operations fell within the list of maritime claims under art 1352.c of the TCC [based on art 1.1.c of the Arrest Convention 1999, and referring to maritime liens arising from art 4.1.c of the MLM Convention 1993].

The defendant claimed that the explosion occurred on MV Tibil on 20 January 2014 while it was moored in Tuzla. The defendant argued that the ship was empty while a hot cutting process was commenced near a tank lid. The explosion was possibly caused by gas compression in the tank. The ship's crew, by their efforts, saved the ship from sinking. The defendant further alleged that it became impossible for the vessel to continue its commercial activities, and it was scrapped and withdrawn from the voyage. The plaintiff's case was not filed in time, the ship was sprayed with pressurised water without any request to do so, and the vessel's list to starboard increased during this operation. As a result, the defendant asked that the operation provided by the plaintiff's fleet be evaluated by the Court to determine whether it fell within art 1311 of the TCC [based on art 18 of the Salvage Convention 1989] dealing with the fault or neglect or fraud or other dishonest conduct of the salvor, in which case, the salvor will be deprived of the whole or part for the reward. The defendant requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Court of first instance found that the service stated to have been provided by the plaintiff should be considered a salvage operation, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a salvage reward. The Court also found that the reward amount requested by the plaintiff was equitable according to the nature and significance of the salvage operation, and held that the evaluation in the calculation was made by considering the required conditions.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed that the case's merits are based on the request for salvage remuneration due to a successful salvage operation. The Supreme Court held that the salvage reward amount was calculated by the experts as per art 1305 of the TCC, which defines criteria for fixing the salvage reward [equivalent to art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989].