This case arose out of the grounding of the Ya Hai 9 after it struck rocks while entering Longyan Port, Weihai. The vessel had heavy fuel oil, light fuel oil, lubricating oil, and oily water on board. The Weihai Maritime Search and Rescue Centre (the Centre) issued a task notice to Qingdao Bihai Maritime Consulting Co Ltd Weihai Branch (the claimant), requiring it to take necessary measures to prevent or reduce the safety risks and marine oil pollution damage arising from the accident. The claimant deployed four tugs for on-site standby and refloating operations, and arranged for the Jiang Hai Yuan 6, together with pollution-prevention equipment and personnel, to stand by for emergency pollution prevention. On 30 March 2024, the Ya Hai 9 was successfully refloated and berthed at Longyan Port. The pollution prevention operation ended on 31 March 2024.

The claimant claimed RMB 2,748,220.98 from Anhui Wanze Shipping Co Ltd and Tao MouMin (the defendants) for tug costs, and pollution prevention and clean-up costs. It also sought confirmation that it had a maritime lien over the Ya Hai 9 for that amount. The defendants argued that they had not instructed the claimant to carry out standby, refloating, towage, or pollution prevention and clean-up operations, and that no salvage contract existed between the parties. They also argued that the tug costs and pollution prevention costs claimed were clearly excessive, that the pollution prevention measures were unnecessary, and that the claimant had no maritime lien.

Held: The claim is allowed in part.

The Qingdao Maritime Court held that the claimant deployed tugs and a pollution prevention vessel to the accident site pursuant to the task notice issued by the Centre. The operation was therefore a salvage operation controlled by the competent public authority. Although the claimant was not the owner of the relevant vessels, it actually controlled and deployed them under leasing agreements and carried out the salvage operation. It should therefore be regarded as the salvor. The crew of the Ya Hai 9 co-operated with the salvage operation and did not make any express and reasonable refusal. A 'no cure no pay' salvage contract was therefore formed between the parties. Since the salvage was successful, the claimant was entitled to a salvage reward.

The Court applied arts 192 and 180 of the PRC Maritime Code, which correspond to art 5 of the International Convention on Salvage 1989 on salvage operations controlled by public authorities, and art 13 of the Convention on the criteria for fixing a salvage reward. The Court confirmed that salvage controlled or directed by a public authority does not prevent the actual salvor from claiming a salvage reward. In assessing the reward, the Court considered the value of the salved vessel, the result of the salvage operation, the nature and degree of the danger, the salvor's skill and efforts in preventing or minimising pollution damage, the time and expenses incurred, the risks assumed, the promptness of the services, and the availability, efficiency and value of the salvage equipment. The Court also emphasised that the reward should encourage salvage operations, but must not exceed the salved value.

As to the pollution prevention measures, the Court held that the operation had the dual purpose of refloating the vessel and preventing oil pollution damage. The standby operation of the Jiang Hai Yuan 6 was intended to assist the refloating of the Ya Hai 9 and reduce the risk of subsequent pollution. It was therefore part of the salvage operation, and the related costs should be dealt with within the framework of the salvage reward, rather than treated separately as oil pollution preventive costs.