The Sea Angel [2007] EWCA Civ 547;
[2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 634; [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 517; [2007] All ER (D) 99 (Jun)
CONTRACT, SALVAGE, FRUSTRATION, CHARTER, DELAY, PORT AUTHORITIES SEIZING VESSEL, RISK OF DETENTION, CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES,
DELAY WITH DELIVERY
Facts
The Sea Angel was a vessel used by Tsavliris to assist in the salvage operations concerning the Tasman Spirit – a tanker loaded with light crude oil, which on 27 July 2003 grounded in or near the approaches of the port of Karachi. On 13 August the Tasman Spirit broke into two, which resulted in a major pollution incident. On 30 July, Tsavliris entered into a contract with the owners of the Tasman Spirit to salve the casualty. The salvage contract contained a compensation, protection and indemnity clause. To fulfil their obligations under the contract, Tsavliris engaged a number of sub-contracted craft, including the Sea Angel, whose task was to act as a shuttle tanker, lightening the Tasman Spirit and carrying oil from her to a larger tanker. Tsavliris chartered the Sea Angel from the claimants on 25 August for up to 20 days. The Sea Angel was delivered to service on 26 August and had to be returned by 15 September at the port of Fujairah. It was impossible to return the Sea Angel because the authorities in Karachi had refused to issue it with the certificate showing that it did not own any port fees for months. In the end, the Sea Angel was returned on 1 January 2004. Tsavliris did not pay any hire fees for the Sea Angel after 18 September 2003. The claimants took legal action to recover the hire fees. The Queen’s Bench ruled in favour of the claimants. Tsavliris appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Issues
(1) Was there a frustration of the contract by the detention of the Sea Angel in Karachi?
(2) Were the defendants or the plaintiffs to bear the risk of delay due to detention by government authorities?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The purpose of the charter had been performed and there was no radical or fundamental change in the circumstances to establish frustration.
(2) The supervening event came at the very end of the charter, so the effect of the detention on the performance of the charter was purely a question of the financial consequences of the delay, which would fall on one party or the other, depending on whether the charter was binding or not.
(3) The risk of detention was purely on the defendants from Tsavliris. This followed from their obligation to pay hire, subject to off-hire clause, until redelivery. The risk of detention was foreseeable by the salvage industry and provided for in the compensation, protection and indemnity clauses.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Edwinton Commercial Corporation v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage & Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2007] EWCA Civ 547. The legal principles set out remain good law. The case continues to be cited as an important authority on the doctrine of frustration in English contract law, particularly for the proposition that frustration requires a radical change in the obligation and that mere financial hardship or foreseeable risk will not suffice. Rix LJ’s multi-factorial approach to frustration, articulated in this judgment, has been subsequently endorsed and applied in later decisions, including by the Supreme Court in Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Ltd v European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch) and in COVID-19 related frustration cases. There are no statutory changes affecting the accuracy of this note. The article is broadly accurate and suitable for student use, though readers should be aware that the multi-factorial test for frustration has been further developed and discussed in subsequent case law.
