17.5 C
Hamburg
Monday, June 2, 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When contacted, a spokesperson for Maersk told Container News, “The case has been withdrawn and no more comments can be provided.”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

Atlantic Forwarding, Atlantic Gate unite under one brand

Atlantic Forwarding and Atlantic Gate unite under one global brand: Atlantic Gate. This rebranding brings together the two entities under one brand. “This rebranding is...

Nuclear-powered vessels gain momentum amid climate push

As the shipping industry seeks radical solutions to meet climate goals and stabilize fuel costs, nuclear propulsion has re-emerged as a transformative force and...

Ukrainian ports face new risks after drone strikes on Russia

On June 1, 2025, Ukraine launched a large-scale, simultaneous drone strike campaign targeting multiple Russian air bases deep inside enemy territory. This marks a significant...

Mixed response to Suez Canal discounts

Container lines are mostly not ready to follow CMA CGM in dabbling with a Red Sea return, notwithstanding the Suez Canal Authority's (SCA's) discounts,...

Mersin International Port completes first phase of expansion project

Mersin International Port Management Inc. (MIP), a key gateway terminal in Türkiye and a joint venture between PSA International, IFM, and Akfen, officially completed...
error: Content is protected !!