Marine Salvage Lawyer in France: Salvage Award, LOF, SCOPIC and Disputed Invoices

On 3 February 2026, a 4,900 gt Maltese chemical coaster lost propulsion twelve miles north west of Ushant, in sea state 6 and a westerly wind of 40 knots; an ocean going tug sailed from Brest and took her to the Bertheaume anchorage, twenty six hours in all. The invoice came to 1,850,000 euros, for a fund valued at a little over 9 million. The owner assumed a decimal point had slipped.

It had not. This page is written for shipowners, for owners of fishing vessels and pleasure craft, for cargo interests and their underwriters who receive a claim for a salvage award, and equally for the salvage companies that must have their own recognised. It says what can be argued about an invoice, and what cannot. It complements the firm’s maritime law page.

The legal framework of marine salvage

The founding text is the Salvage Convention 1989, signed in London on 28 April 1989, in force since 14 July 1996, published in France by Decree no. 2002-645 of 23 April 2002 and substituted for the Brussels Convention of 1910. In domestic law, the chapter on salvage in the French Transport Code, Articles L. 5132-1 to L. 5132-13, carries that scheme through.

The scope is wide: a salvage operation, within the meaning of Article 1(a), is any act undertaken to assist a vessel or any other property in danger in navigable waters. “Any other property” takes in cargo, bunkers and freight; “navigable waters” covers the estuary, the canal and the harbour basin; danger remains the substantive condition.

The exclusions are clear cut. Article 3 puts aside fixed or floating platforms and mobile offshore drilling units when they are on station and engaged in the exploration or exploitation of sea bed mineral resources: the same platform falls under the Convention while under tow and escapes it in production. Article 4 reserves non commercial State vessels; Article 30(1)(d) allows maritime cultural property to be excluded, and France entered that reservation.

The Convention is not a straitjacket for all that: Article 6(1) leaves the parties free to order their relations otherwise, save for the duties of care in Article 8 and the rules on the saving of human life, which are mandatory. A lump sum may be agreed. What may not be agreed is that the salvor will ignore the environment.

Danger, and the line between salvage and towage

Danger is the keystone. Without danger there is no salvage: only a service rendered, payable at the price of a service rendered. The case law, French and English alike, requires real danger without requiring it to be imminent. A ship drifting without propulsion twenty miles off a rocky coast is in no immediate peril; she is nonetheless in danger, because the weather may turn and nothing on board can answer it.

The assessment is made as at the moment of the operation: the party challenging the claim reasons after the event, with the ship safely alongside, while the arbitrator puts himself back at the instant of the call. A risk that did not materialise is still a risk that was run.

Hence the most litigated question of all: may a tug performing an ordinary contract claim a salvage award when the operation degenerates? Article 17 of the Salvage Convention 1989 answers that no payment is due for services rendered under a contract entered into before the danger arose, unless those services exceed what can reasonably be considered due performance of that contract. The harbour tug holding a container ship against a beam wind is doing its job. The tug whose line has parted and which stays twenty hours alongside a grounded ship has gone beyond it.

In the pleasure craft world the same line runs lower and blurs. We call it the channel 16 trap: agreement given over the radio, without the word price ever being uttered, becomes a salvage claim if danger is established, and a simple contract for services if it is not. At sea, it is not the towing that is paid for. It is the danger.

The salvage contract, the Lloyd’s Open Form and its revision

Salvage rarely takes place without a contract, and that contract is almost always signed by the master, Article 6(2) giving him authority to conclude it on behalf of the owner of the vessel and on behalf of the owner of the property on board. It therefore binds the cargo interest who signed nothing and knew nothing. The rule startles. It also allows a decision to be taken in minutes.

The form most often used remains the Lloyd’s Open Form, whose LOF 2024 edition, applicable since 1 June 2024, succeeds LOF 2020. Everything fits on a single page: the contractor undertakes to use best endeavours to salve the property and to prevent damage to the environment; no figure is fixed; English law applies; the award is arbitrated in London under the Lloyd’s Salvage Arbitration Clauses.

Many operations on the French coast are settled instead on a lump sum or a daily rate: the litigation disappears, at the price of a sum owed even where nothing is achieved.

An open form exposes the party assisted to the risk of having agreed under the pressure of circumstances, and that is the subject of Article 7: the contract or any of its terms may be annulled or modified if it was entered into under undue influence or the influence of danger and its terms are inequitable, or if the payment agreed is in either direction excessive for the services actually rendered. It also protects the salvor paid a pittance. Courts do not reach for it lightly.

“No cure, no pay” and the calculation of the award

The principle takes four English words: no useful result, no payment. Article 12 makes the right to an award conditional on success: the salvor who has worked three days on a ship that sinks gets nothing. Where there is a result, the award does not reimburse a cost. It pays for a risk.

Article 13 lists the criteria without ranking them, and reading them alone explains why two operations of identical length are paid ten times differently: the salved value of the vessel and other property, the skill and efforts of the salvors in salving the vessel, other property and life and in preventing or minimising damage to the environment, the nature and degree of the danger, the time used, the expenses incurred and losses suffered, the promptness of the services, and the availability and value of the equipment.

The cap is absolute: the award may not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property, and that is no favour to the party assisted, it is the counterpart of “no cure, no pay”. Off Ushant, the question was not whether 1,850,000 euros was expensive, but what share of a 9 million fund the danger run could justify.

Apportionment runs along two lines: on the salvor’s side, between owner and crew, according to the law of the flag of the salving vessel (Article 15(2)); on the salved side, between ship, cargo, freight and bunkers, in proportion to salved values. Article 21 allows satisfactory security to be required and forbids the property being removed before it has been provided. Where the operation was for the common safety, Rule VI of the York-Antwerp Rules 2016 admits the award in general average.

Special compensation, the environment and the SCOPIC clause

“No cure, no pay” discouraged intervention on a low value ship carrying a dangerous cargo. Article 14 corrects that: the salvor who has salved a vessel which threatened damage to the environment, without earning under Article 13 an award at least equivalent, is entitled to special compensation equal to his expenses, payable by the owner of the vessel.

If he has prevented or minimised damage to the environment, the tribunal may increase that sum by up to 30 per cent of the expenses, and up to 100 per cent where it considers it fair and just, such damage meaning substantial physical damage to human health or to marine life or resources, by pollution, fire or explosion.

One decision drained the mechanism of much of its appeal. In Semco Salvage & Marine Pte Ltd v Lancer Navigation Co Ltd, known as The Nagasaki Spirit, the House of Lords held on 6 February 1997 that the “fair rate” under Article 14(3) contains no element of profit, since it covers what is laid out and not what is earned. Sound in law, discouraging in economics.

The industry answered with a contractual substitute, the SCOPIC clause, in its 2020 version, incorporated into the LOF through box 7. The contractor may invoke it at any time, without having to show any threat to the environment; the owner provides within two working days security of 3 million United States dollars; the tariff carries a 25 per cent uplift; if the Article 13 award exceeds the SCOPIC amount, the contractor suffers a discount of 25 per cent of the difference. That last feature is what prevents SCOPIC being invoked as a matter of course.

Public authority hangs over all of it. Article 8 requires the salvor to exercise due care to prevent damage to the environment and the party assisted to cooperate; the maritime prefect may serve formal notice on the owner to put an end to the danger. The marine pollution page sets out that side of the matter.

Saving life at sea and refusal to assist

Saving human life is not paid for. Article 16(1) says so without reservation: no remuneration is due from persons whose lives have been saved, and it is one of the few rules of maritime law that no contract reverses. The survivor winched off a deck will never receive an invoice.

The life salvor does not go away empty handed for all that: Article 16(2) gives him a fair share of the payment awarded to the salvor who, in the course of the same operation, salved the vessel. There must still be a fund to share.

The duty to render assistance, by contrast, carries criminal sanctions. Article 98 of the Montego Bay Convention of 10 December 1982 requires every State to demand of the master of a ship flying its flag that he render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to his ship, her crew or her passengers. Article L. 5262-5 of the French Transport Code punishes the defaulting master with two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 3,750 euros, and Article L. 5262-6 deals specifically with the master who, after a collision, makes off without having gone to the aid of the other ship.

Two confusions recur. The first is to believe that the duty to assist persons carries with it a duty to tow the ship: the master who has taken off the crew may decline the hull. The second concerns the role of the Société nationale de sauvetage en mer, whose volunteers have never invoiced a human life, but which asks for a contribution to costs where the intervention amounts to towing a boat out of danger. That dividing line is the very architecture of the Salvage Convention 1989.

Challenging the salvage invoice

Three situations support the argument that nothing at all is due. No useful result: nothing was salved, and Article 12 shuts the door. Performance of a pre existing contract: the tug booked the day before did what it was booked to do, and Article 17 refuses it any supplement. And absence of danger, the hardest to establish: it means reconstructing a sea state, a position and the condition of a ship at a precise moment.

A fourth route reduces the invoice without extinguishing it: Article 18 deprives the salvor of all or part of the payment where, through his fault, he made the salvage necessary or more difficult, or has been guilty of fraud. The tug that stoves in a plate while passing the line does not lose its claim; it watches it shrink in proportion to the damage caused.

Everything turns on evidence, and evidence perishes. Log book, communications with the CROSS rescue coordination centre, AIS tracks, VDR data, Météo-France records, the master’s sea protest: that file decides the case. Assembled the same day, it is worth a survey. Six months later, it is worth almost nothing.

The forum depends on the contract and on the parties. A LOF sends the dispute to London, before the arbitrator appointed by the Council of Lloyd’s, under English law: challenging it in France is doomed. Outside a LOF, the dispute goes to the tribunal de commerce between traders, to the tribunal judiciaire where the party assisted is a leisure sailor, and the parties may agree on the Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber. The choice of forum sets the decision maker’s mental scale.

Which insurance pays the salvage award

A salvage award is almost never borne by the party who owes it, but you still have to know which of his policies responds. The French hull and machinery policy covers salvage and assistance charges incurred to preserve the vessel, within the limits and subject to the deductibles it fixes. The cargo policy covers, on the cargo side, the general average contribution and the share of charges allocated to the goods.

For special compensation the dividing line runs elsewhere. SCOPIC carries its origin in its name: Special Compensation P&I Clause. Article 14 and the SCOPIC amount fall to the owner’s P&I club, not to the hull underwriter, which explains a good deal of the tension seen within a single casualty. Rule VI(d) of the York-Antwerp Rules 2016 confirms it: neither special compensation nor sums due under SCOPIC are allowed in general average. Cargo does not contribute to them.

Security under Article 21 takes the form of a club letter or a bank guarantee, whose limit, governing law and chosen jurisdiction bind for years. It is the document signed fastest and lived with longest. The underwriter who has paid is subrogated to the rights of his assured and may pursue the third party responsible for the casualty. The marine insurance page develops these mechanisms.

Time bar, security and limitation of liability

The period is short. Article 23(1) shuts any action for payment within two years, running from the day on which the salvage operations were terminated, and that is not the date of the invoice, nor the date of the refusal to pay, nor the date of the survey report. It is the day the tow was slipped. Domestic law takes up the same time bar in the salvage chapter of the French Transport Code.

Article 23(2) opens a safety valve: the person against whom the claim is made may, during the period, extend it by a declaration addressed to the claimant. That unilateral extension is in daily use between underwriters, and its simplicity deceives, because an extension accepted for the owner does not bind the club, one granted by the hull underwriter has not extended time against cargo, and the file turns out to be time barred against one of them. Everything looks in order. Nothing is.

Then there is limitation. The party assisted cannot set up against the salvor the global cap he enjoys for his other debts: the LLMC 1976, the London Convention of 19 November 1976 on limitation of liability for maritime claims, excludes claims for salvage from its scope at Article 3(a). They fall outside the limitation fund.

The salvor, for his part, may limit his liability: Article 6(4) of the same convention deals with the salvor who does not operate from a ship, or who operates solely on the ship to which he is rendering services, his limit being calculated on a notional tonnage of 1,500 tons, which Article L. 5132-13 of the French Transport Code raises to 2,000 before a French court. The point looks technical; it fixes the compensation ceiling of the owner whose ship has been damaged by the salvage team on board. Our French-language analysis of the shipowner’s limitation of liability sets out the working of the limitation fund in detail.

How the firm works

The firm acts for shipowners, for owners of fishing vessels and pleasure craft, for cargo interests, for salvage and towage companies, for underwriters and for P&I clubs. Everything begins with characterisation: danger or mere service, salvage or performance of a towage contract, Article 13 or Article 14.

Then come the evidence file, the negotiation of security under Article 21, the argument on quantum before the court or the arbitrator, the interaction with general average and the recourse actions against the third party responsible for the casualty. The firm also defends the salvor whose claim is contested, and the leisure sailor facing an invoice out of all proportion to his boat. See also our maritime litigation and ship collision pages.

Based in Paris, the firm acts in every French port, in mainland France and overseas, before the commercial and civil courts of the coast and before the Paris Maritime Arbitration Chamber, and works in English with P&I clubs, insurers and foreign counsel.

Analyses and guides

Our guide to maritime contracts sets out the clauses that decide a dispute before it arises. Where the salvage was undertaken for the common safety, apportionment runs through the average adjustment: our English-language analysis, general average in six points, who contributes and whom to pursue, follows that sequence, and the marine insurance page covers the cover side of it. Owners of pleasure craft and yachts will find their own treatment on the yacht disputes page.

Frequently asked questions

What does “useful result” mean, and what happens if my ship sinks anyway?

The useful result is the condition of payment: Article 12 of the Salvage Convention 1989 makes the right to an award conditional on the success of the operation, and if nothing was salved, nothing is due. Partial success is enough, the award being proportionate to its extent. The only exception is the special compensation under Article 14, due without any salvage where the operation prevented damage to the environment.

Can the salvor claim more than the value of my ship?

No: Article 13 of the Salvage Convention 1989 forbids the award exceeding the salved value of the vessel and other property, so that a low value hull towed at the price of a heavy operation protects its owner. The special compensation under Article 14 escapes that cap since it indemnifies expenses: it is aimed at ships whose value does not cover the cost of an environmental intervention.

Does my hull policy cover the salvage award?

The French hull and machinery policy covers salvage and assistance charges incurred to preserve the vessel, up to the sum insured and subject to the deductibles provided for. Three points have to be checked in the particular conditions: the agreed value, which fixes the ceiling, the average clause in case of under insurance, and the treatment of charges incurred without result. Article 14, for its part, falls to the P&I club.

Who may sign a Lloyd’s Open Form, the owner or the master?

The master. Article 6(2) of the Salvage Convention 1989 gives him authority to conclude the contract on behalf of the owner of the vessel and of the owner of the property on board, and LOF 2024 reproduces that rule. The owner cannot therefore claim to be a stranger to it; what remains open to him is Article 7, which allows the annulment of a contract entered into under the influence of danger on inequitable terms.

What is the SCOPIC clause and who pays it?

SCOPIC stands for Special Compensation P&I Clause. Incorporated into the LOF through box 7, in its 2020 version, it replaces the special compensation of Article 14 with a tariff. The contractor may invoke it at any time, without showing any threat to the environment; the owner provides within two working days security of 3 million United States dollars, in practice a letter from his club; the tariff carries a 25 per cent uplift.

Is my crew entitled to a share of the salvage award?

Yes, if it is the crew of the salving vessel: Article 15(2) of the Salvage Convention 1989 refers apportionment of the award between the owner, the master and the other persons in the service of the vessel to the law of the flag. The crew of the salved vessel gets nothing: they are not salvors, they are salved. The Convention does allow an award between two ships in the same ownership.

Must the cargo owner pay when he signed nothing?

Yes, and two rules combine: Article 6(2) of the Salvage Convention 1989 authorises the master to conclude the contract on behalf of the owner of the property on board, and Article 13 requires payment by all the salved interests in proportion to their value. What the cargo interest has to check is not his signature, but the value attributed to his goods and the reality of their salvage.

Can the award be reduced if the salvor made the damage worse?

Yes. Article 18 of the Salvage Convention 1989 allows the salvor to be deprived of all or part of the payment where, by his fault or neglect, he made the salvage operations necessary or more difficult, or has been guilty of fraud. The reduction is assessed against the gravity of the fault, and the claim is documented by a survey held in the presence of both sides.

Matters in this field are handled by Hervé Guyader, lawyer at the Paris Bar and doctor of law.