Plaintiff was a diver and in January 1985 was requested by defendant company to assist in the salvage of the ship Argonaftis, which found herself in difficulty outside Grand Harbour. Plaintiff, with others, salvaged the ship, and many claims for damages were made in arbitration by: 1) Tug Malta Ltd, 2) the Pilots and Mooring Men and 3) Department of Ports, Sea Malta Company Ltd, Malta Drydocks and Sartard Ltd altogether.

Plaintiff’s part in the salvage was brought forward in arbitration together with Sartard’s by an arrangement between them.

The arbitral award delivered in April 1986 described plaintiff’s work as “the bravest single act of the services”. The sum awarded was divided between the above. An appeal confirmed the amount liquidated in favour of Sartard as $218,750 (Lm74,341.54). Plaintiff then approached Sartard to pay him his dues from the liquidated portion. However, defendant refused before plaintiff accepted that he had to be treated as an employee for the duration of the salvage. Plaintiff expected to be remunerated on the basis of “quantum meruit” in proportion to the amount liquidated in favour of Sartard. Plaintiff actively participated in the salvage and claimed a right “de proprio” to a portion of the compensation.

First Hall, Civil Court

• Upheld plaintiff’s pleas and liquidated the amount due to him by Sartard to US$54,687;

• Parties agreed that the main issue was the quantum of compensation to be attributed to plaintiff and that the latter played a considerable part in the salvage. However, defendants claimed that plaintiff worked in an operation run by them and could not have acted without the structures that they provided and the directions of certain individuals. Plaintiff claimed that his work was indispensable and he was hence entitled to a portion of the award and not to a fee for the work he carried out.

Evidence showed that Sartard contributed a large quantity of machinery, provided personnel and drew up plans for the salvage necessary to instruct the diver. The Harbour Master stated that plaintiff’s role was dangerous in that the ship could have capsized and trapped him – “he was very competent and he contributed a lot to the salvage of the ship… his act was one of the greatest acts of bravery” yet, he continued that plaintiff “was not the principal cause of the salvage but he gave a lot of contribution…”

In a 2001 case, it was established that the requisites for salvage are:

• The service must be rendered:

• to a legally recognised subject of salvage, that is to say their apparel, cargo and merchandise, bunkers, wreck and so called freight at risk

• voluntary

• successful

• The subject of the salvage must be in danger;

• In determining the amount or the apportionment of salvage, the court shall have regard to the:

• measure of success obtained and the efforts and deserts of the salvor;

• danger run by the vessel saved, by her passengers, crew and cargo;

• danger run by the salvor and the salving vessel;

• time expended,

• expenses incurred, losses suffered, and risks of liability and other risks run by the salvors,

• value of the property exposed to such risks, due regard being had to the special appropriation, if any, of the salvor’s vessels for salvage purposes

• value of the property saved.

(Merchant Shipping Act Art. 345(2)).

Defendants held that plaintiff’s actions were normal in the course of his work and not of the nature of salvage. Yet plaintiff claimed that he made it clear from before the initiation of the operation that he considered it as salvage. He was not an employee of Sartard but was called by the latter to be a diver in specific cases.

“It is well established that Masters, individual officers or other members of the crew of an assisting vessel may successfully claim salvage rewards in their own right provided that they can individually (or jointly if they consolidate their claims) show that their claim(s) have merit and that the services they rendered personally contained all the necessary ingredients of proper salvage”. (Maritime Law C. Hill 5th Edition).

From the evidence, it was clear that plaintiff’s role was more than the regular work of a diver. All persons involved in the effort to save Argonaftis from sinking knew from the start that the operation was one of salvage.

The Court agreed that plaintiff played a principal role and risked his life and should have been rewarded for his actions. Plaintiff was to receive ¼ of Sartard’s portion, therefore US$54,687.

Defendant company appealed, demanding that the Court reduce the amount liquidated in favour of plaintiff.

Court of Appeal

• The amount attributed to plaintiff was calculated at the First Hall’s discretion.

• There are no concrete criteria to follow in the apportioning of the award.

• The First Hall, taking into consideration plaintiff’s participation and risks, drew up an appropriate amount.

Salvage occurs when a salvage operation succeeds, ie a ship is stopped from sinking and/or her cargo is totally or partially salvaged. The Court considered the extent of plaintiff’s participation and risks and did not diminish the importance of the role played by defendant company. This was reflected in the apportionment of the award – ¾ to Sartard, ¼ to plaintiff. Hence, the Court of Appeal agreed with the allotments of the award and considerations and denied the appeal.