The tug Sea Bronco (owned by Sea Bronco BV (SB) and operated by Seacontractors BV) rendered assistance on 4 December 2015 to the pontoons SM 252 and SM 254 (both owned by SM Barges Pte Ltd (SMB) and being towed as a set) after their towing cable with the tug Pacific Hickory (owned and operated by Seabridge Marine Services Ltd (SMS)) had broken in the Maas West Approach approximately 24 nautical sea miles west of Hook of Holland. The Sea Bronco made a connection with the pontoons and towed them to Hook of Holland. Seacontractors claimed a salvage reward of EUR 150,000 from SMS and SMB.

Held: Because of the location of SMS in Canada and SMB in Singapore and the provided assistance on the high seas, the case has an international character. It is not in dispute that the court is competent to take cognizance of this case. The Netherlands is a party to the Salvage Convention 1989. Because the salvage claim has been brought in a Contracting State, the Salvage Convention applies.

Seacontractors bases its claim on art 8:561 of the Dutch Civil Code. This article is taken from art 12 of the Salvage Convention. On the basis of this provision, only the shipowner (or master) of a co-operating ship, in this case the Sea Bronco, is entitled to claim and collect a reward. This means that only SB is entitled to claim and the claim set up by the operator of the assisting ship (Seacontractors) is rejected. SMS has rightly argued that only the owner of the set of pontoons, SMB, can be the debtor of the reward claim. After all, with art 8:563.3 of the Dutch Civil Code, the Netherlands made use of the option provided for in art 13.2 of the Salvage Convention and channeled the liability to the owner of the salved ship. This means that the claim brought against the owner/operator of the Pacific Hickory, namely SMS, must be rejected.

The first substantive question that must be answered is whether the work carried out by the Sea Bronco can be regarded as salvage. Salvage with a useful result is entitled to a reward under art 12 of the Salvage Convention. Article 1 of the Salvage Convention defines salvage operations as being 'any act or activity to assist a vessel or other property in danger in navigable waters or in any waters whatsoever'. In its judgment of 9 February 1996 (Frio Alaska (CMI141)), the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) further defined the concept of 'danger' in art 1 of the Salvage Convention. A wide interpretation has been chosen in which there is a danger when there is a situation of imminent loss, at least a very serious disadvantage, from which the ship cannot save itself by its own power, without outside assistance. According to the Supreme Court, the availability of assistance is not a circumstance that stands in the way of a finding of the existence of danger. Furthermore, it has been decided that a relatively small degree of danger can also suffice for the existence of danger in the above sense. The level of danger is important when determining the amount of the reward. Likewise, see the ruling of the Supreme Court of 2 October 1998 (Sioux (CMI142)), in which there was 'a real threat of the increase of damage and therefore of danger'. The Court assesses the situation according to prognoses and expectations at the time of assistance (Zwaardvis, HR, 12 June 1981 (CMI2185)).

There was a real risk of suffering damage here, so there was danger. The set of pontoons was lying in the Maas West Approach, a busy route, and judging by its size it would catch the wind. The weather conditions were not to remain good. During the day, the wind would turn south and increase in strength to 5-6 Bft. The situation in which the Port of Rotterdam Authority would lead the maritime traffic away from the pontoons could not continue. The Pacific Hickory had not yet succeeded to reattach to the tow and it was clear that the set of pontoons could not stay there. There was a risk that the pontoons would move leeward and end up in the anchorage area or in the Eurogeul. The master of the Pacific Hickory, who first told the master of the Sea Bronco that he was not in need of assistance, accepted the second offer of assistance. There was therefore no question of a prohibition within the meaning of art 19 of the Salvage Convention.

SMS disputes that the salvage had a useful result, arguing that the set of pontoons could never have been damaged or lost. The Pacific Hickory could have attached itself to the emergency tow connection of the set of pontoons or alongside the set of pontoons and could wait for towing assistance. This argument is rejected. The possible actions suggested by SMS and SMB, namely that the Pacific Hickory could either have picked up the set of pontoons itself or could have lain alongside the set of pontoons, were not executed. Thereafter, the set of pontoons and their appurtenances were safely taken to the port by the Sea Bronco and with that they were saved. Thus the salvage had a useful result and a salvage reward is due pursuant to art 12 of the Salvage Convention.

Pursuant to art 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989 the reward is to be fixed with a view to encouraging salvage operations, taking into account the non-exhaustive and randomized list of criteria mentioned in that article. The salved value is calculated at EUR 2,724,795.64. There was no question of preventing or limiting damage to the environment. With regard to danger, the risk of incurring damage is looked at. The danger was, in hindsight, very limited because the Sea Bronco was able to attach a cable to the pontoons fairly quickly. The risks that the Sea Bronco could reasonably expect during the salvage were relatively limited as well due to the favourable weather conditions. Picking up the pontoons and salvaging the tow line and chain were done skillfully. The salvage was, however, not difficult. The actions of the Sea Bronco were relatively simple, so on that point, there are no factors that should increase or decrease the reward. In total the salvage operation took 11 hours and 35 minutes. The danger, however, had passed after 10 minutes. The Sea Bronco was supposed to take the pontoons to the mouth of the river Maas, where a harbour tugboat lay ready to take over, but the master of the Sea Bronco did not have permission from his employer to hand over the tow to the harbour tugboat. He had to bring the tow to the Rotterdam port himself, for which there was, however, no need. The time occupied with the salvage operation of the set of pontoons is set at three hours and 45 minutes. The time (four hours and 45 minutes) that it took to heave the tow line (with a salved value of EUR 7,599) is not taken into account in setting the reward. Taking into account the salved value of the pontoons, the rather limited amount of danger, the time used by the Sea Bronco, the measure of success of the salvage operation, and the speed and skill of the salvage operation, a reward of EUR 25,000 is reasonable.