Was Swire offering the government to do the job for free just to prove their capability and to get future contracts and make Odyssey look bad and incapable of following through?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I will grant you that the timing of the Admiralty Arrest and the recovery of the silver are highly coincidental and I posted about such concerns previously. It could be possible that they had seen Swire nosing around the area but were not aware that a salvage operation had taken place.
If it was on the up and up, why the fight to keep the details under wraps?/QUOTE]
As noted by the UK govt ROW and DfT responses, the details are kept confidential. There is no fight to keep in under wraps, there is the policy of the departments. They are under no bounds to answer to Odyssey or any other disinterested party. They have their policy until the ownership has been decided.
You are taking this out of context. You are talking about an Admiralty Arrest, this is not. This was a contract for services that the owner hired a salvor to do a job for a percentage of the value of the recovery, The salvor has no claim to the recovery, nor the vessel it is recovered from.“Upon rendering salvage service, a salvor obtains a lien...This lien attaches to the property to the exclusion of all others, including the property’s true owner.“
There was, nor is no lien, it was simply a "no cure no pay" contract, not an Admiralty Arrest. I suppose you would benefit from looking at the actual contract that Odyssey signed with the DfT for the recovery?
Odyssey was hired to clean out the basement, not claim the house.
Of course, while under contract, Odyssey would have been the Salvor, and does get a salvage award. Where do you see that I have stated otherwise? Answering the phrase, what would the DfT present, a non-existent contract? Odyssey could be determined to be salvor in possession, while under contract. Once that contract ended, they have no claims.“DfT has not presented evidence substantiating it’s claim that Odyssey, pursuant to a contract, was ineligible to serve as a salvor.”
It is correct, that Odyssey does not, nor ever did have a maritime lien on the Mantola, but not because all of the cargo has been removed, it is because they were working a contract.on one principal ground: that because nearly all of the Mantola’s precious cargo has been removed, Odyssey does not have–and will never have–a maritime lien on the Mantola.”
Of course, while under contract, Odyssey would have been the Salvor, and does get a salvage award. Where do you see that I have stated otherwise? Answering the phrase, what would the DfT present, a non-existent contract? Odyssey could be determined to be salvor in possession, while under contract. Once that contract ended, they have no claims.
Odyssey was under contract to salvage the cargo on the Mantola and while under contract, another Salvor (yet officially unknown but one is a suspect) salvaged most of the Silver Bars from the Mantola. This is a Breech of Odyssey's Salvage Contract with the DfT and likely the ROW and they also have a right to a Salvage Award, Court Costs and likely Damages from the unknown Salvor and possibly from the DfT and the ROW as well.
You really need to go back to school and learn Case Law!
Where do you get your information from?
There is absolutely nothing or no one that states the wreck was recovered while it was under contract. Even Odyssey doesnt alleged this. They were 'fishing' to try to get the information.
Nothing, not one shred of evidence. The contract expired in 2015. I suppose even you are aware that the silver did not get to the RoW until more than a year after the contract expired?
If you go back and read pages 1 and 2, you will see that Odyssey suspected and alleged that the unknown Salvor (which was likely Swire's Seabed Worker) salvaged the Silver from the Mantola some time between May and September of 2015. However, Odyssey's Salvage Contract with the DfT did not expire until September 15 of 2015. On page 2, information shows that Odyssey found clear proof through AIS that the Swire's Seabed Worker was anchored over the Mantola during this time period (May - Sept. 2015) before Odyssey's contract expired and another Swire Ship visited the area briefly in April 2017 before heading to England.
"The Court finds the law of salvage--to the exclusion of the law of finds--applicable here. The law of finds is inappropriate here because, as discussed above, the property at issue--the Mantola and it's cargo-- is clearly not abandoned."
The UK Court has ordered the Receiver of Wreck and the Department for Transport to comply with Odyssey's requests for information surrounding the recovery of the 526 silver bars from the Mantola.
Where is this information available?
Included here?
12/21/2018 73 LETTER addressed to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer from John D. Kimball dated 12/21/2018 Document filed by Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kimball, John) (Entered: 12/21/2018)