Saturday, June 28, 2025
Home Most Popular Maersk settles Ever Given case out of court

Maersk settles Ever Given case out of court

Maersk Line has reached an out-of-court settlement with the parties it sued for damages resulting from the grounding of Ever Given in the Suez Canal two years ago.

The 20,124 TEU Ever Given, owned by Japanese tonnage provider Shoei Kisen Kaisha and on long-term charter to Taiwanese mainline operator Evergreen Marine Corporation, became grounded on 23 March 2021, soon after crossing the southern entrance to the Suez Canal. It turned out that the canal’s width was shorter than the length of Ever Given, resulting in the bow and stern of the ship stuck in each bank.

The incident cut off the waterway to all shipping, affecting up to 400 vessels during the six days that the canal was closed. Affected vessels included 50 container ships.

To refloat the Ever Given, the Shoei Kisen engaged SMIT Salvage for the complex operation.

Approximately 30,000 cubic metres of sand was dredged to help free Ever Given and 11 harbour tugs and two seagoing tugs were deployed.

On 29 March, the distressed ship was refloated.

Early this year, Maersk sued Shoei Kisen and Evergreen at Denmark’s Maritime and Commercial Court for damages from the disruption. Evergreen responded that it could not be held liable as it was merely the charterer of the ship, with Shoei Kisen responsible for the technical management.

When contacted, a spokesperson for Maersk told Container News, “The case has been withdrawn and no more comments can be provided.” Danish media reported that Maersk sought US$40 million in its suit.

Shortly after the Ever Given was re-floated, a dispute also arose as to whether a binding contract had been concluded between the SMIT and the ship’s registered owners, Luster Maritime SA and Higaki Sangyo Kaisha, both subsidiaries of Shoei Kisen Kaisha.

SMIT asserted that as no binding contract was signed with Luster and Higaki, it could claim salvage under the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (the ‘Convention’) and/or at common law.

E-mail exchanges between representatives of SMIT and Luster’s and Higaki’s claims handler were submitted as evidence that both sides had agreed on remuneration for the Dutch company. However, no binding contract was inked at the time.

Earlier this year, a London court ruled in favour of SMIT.


Martina Li
Asia Correspondent





Latest Posts

We asked AI: When containers become pools

We asked AI what a container might look like if it was trasformed into a pool. The result? Long steel containers, many of them stacked,...

Transpacific crash may normalise charter market

Containership charter rates, which have defied the freight slump for some time, could be peaking, as some small ships chartered by opportunistic operators for...

Shipping alliances carriers and MSC control over 80% of market

As the container shipping industry continues its transformation, strategic cooperation among carriers remains a key force shaping global trade. According to updated Alphaliner data,...

Konecranes delivers crane package for BAE Systems’ in Scotland

Konecranes has completed a turnkey crane project for BAE Systems’ brand-new shipbuilding hall in Govan, Scotland. The installation, finished in June 2025, includes two electric...

Kalmar launches digital tool to streamline equipment inspections

Kalmar has introduced Inspector, a new digital application designed to streamline daily inspections of material handling equipment. Inspector enhances the efficiency of routine equipment checks...
error: Content is protected !!