A flotilla was fastened together and moored in San Francisco Bay. The flotilla consisted of the Heerema Barge H 109 (Heerema Barge), one or more barges owned by Kaiser Steel Corp, and a large oil drilling rig owned by Shell California Production Inc (the defendants). The Heerema Barge dragged its mooring anchor and the flotilla began to drift toward a bridge. In response to distress calls, the tug Polaris motored to the flotilla and offered assistance. The owner, charterer and two crew members of the Polaris (the plaintiffs) brought an action seeking salvage award for the salvage services they had performed. First, the plaintiffs argued that the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Assistance and Salvage at Sea 1910 (Salvage Convention 1910) did not apply in this case on the ground that all the persons interested in this case were from the US. The plaintiffs argued that only those defendants who had been served and had appeared before the Court should be regarded 'all the persons interested'. Second, the plaintiffs argued that the factors of 'the value to defendants in being spared from liability to third parties' and 'public interest' should be included as considerations in determining a salvage award. The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking the Court to clarify and limit the factors it may consider in deciding a salvage award.

Held: Motion granted.

Article 1 of the Salvage Convention 1910 provides that the Convention applies to salvage operations involving seagoing vessels and vessels of inland navigation, regardless of where they occur. In addition, art 14 of the Convention provides that it does not apply to ships of war or to government ships appropriated exclusively to a public service. Furthermore, art 15 of the Convention provides that it shall apply when any of the vessels involved belongs to a country that has signed the Convention. However, art 15 provides that the Convention does not apply where all the persons interested are from the country in which the case is being tried. The Court held that to reinterpret 'all the persons interested' as 'all parties served' would be to drastically restrict the scope of the Salvage Convention 1910. The phrase must at least encompass named defendants, and in this case two of the named defendants were corporations formed under the laws of countries other than the US. Therefore, the Court found that the Salvage Convention 1910 governed this case.

Article 8 of the Salvage Convention 1910 enumerates the factors that need to be considered in deciding a salvage award. In addition, art 2 of the Convention places an upper limit on the salvage award at the value of the property salved. In light of the Montreal Draft International Convention on Salvage 1981 (Draft Convention), the Court held that it could not consider the prevention of potential liability as a distinct factor under art 8 of the Salvage Convention 1910. The Draft Convention explicitly considered and rejected the concept of liability salvage, because it chose to give enhanced rewards for minimising damage to the environment. In addition, the public interest is a factor motivating the existence of salvage awards. However, that is not to say that the public interest, per se, is to be a distinct factor in the calculation of a salvage award. Therefore, the Court held that neither liability salvage nor the public interest should be considered as distinct factors under art 8 of the Salvage Convention 1910.