This case involved salvage assistance on the basis of a Lloyds Open Form (LOF) (27 September 2024) provided by the Abeille Bourbon, owned by Les Abeilles (LA), to the One Hammersmith, owned by Primavera Montana SA (Primavera), after the latter vessel experienced engine trouble off the coast of France. The LOF named 'Bay of Douarnenez' (France) as the 'Agreed Place of Safety' and provided that LA's claim would be determined in arbitration in London, according to the Lloyd's Salvage Arbitration Clauses (LSAC). The Abeille Bourbon anchored the One Hammersmith in the Bay of Douarnenez. In these proceedings before the Provisional Measures Judge of the Rechtbank Rotterdam, LA demanded that full security should be put up by Primavera and the charterers of the One Hammersmith for a possible salvage reward.

Held:

Article 21.3 of the Salvage Convention 1989 does not provide a proper basis for LA's claims. Although Rotterdam is the first port of call for the ship, there was an earlier place at which the ship arrived after salvage assistance was provided, namely the Bay of Douarnenez.

The security already provided by Primavera stipulates that LA would refrain from attachment or any other measure to obtain security. The action brought against Primavera violates that agreement.

With respect to the time charterer of the vessel, Ocean Network Express Pte Ltd (ONE), documents submitted later showed that security had already been largely agreed upon prior to the hearing in these provisional measures proceedings. LA erred in not informing the Provisional Measures Judge of this, and failed to explain why it still has an interest in the action against ONE. It is contrary to the rules of due process to stay the case against ONE, which would merely delay dismissal.

As concerns Hapag-Lloyd AG (Hapag), HMM Co Ltd (HMM) and Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp (Yang Ming), a right of action by LA is not plausible, and was possibly even relinquished by the vessel's departure from the Bay of Douarnenez. Hapag and Yang Ming argue that they do not own (all) the containers or the cargo, without refutation of that argument by LA. Yang Ming has already confirmed prior to the hearing in the provisional measures proceedings that it had provided adequate security, and LA does not substantiate why a small additional amount would not be sufficient. This, together with a violation of art 21 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (duty to make a full and truthful presentation of the facts that are relevant to the decision in the matter), leads to the dismissal of the claim against Hapag and Yang Ming. HMM, who did not enter an appearance, had indicated that it would provide a guarantee. LA neither states nor substantiates why it cannot rely on that undertaking, which also leads to the dismissal of the claim against HMM.