Delta Law Expat Services Desk ｜ Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院, typical case batch released 2026-04-16
- Case name 案例名称：中国某救助打捞公司与葡萄牙籍某公司海难救助合同纠纷案 (salvage contract dispute between a Chinese salvage company and a Portuguese company)
- Case number 案例编号：最高人民法院《第三批涉外商事海事调解典型案例》案例六，2026 年 4 月 16 日发布，本批共 6 件
- Effective judgment 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号；官方载明受理法院为海口海事法院
- Keywords 关键词：官方案例标题载明「依托水上“一站式”多元解纷机制凝聚合力」
- Provisions cited officially 官方载明的相关法条：官方发布文本未载明任何条号，只写向双方解读「国际公约及海难救助案件的裁判规则」；本页所引条号均为现行规则提示
- Why this case 为什么选它：Most published cases show a foreign party as claimant. This one shows a foreign company on the receiving end of a claim in a Chinese court, under time pressure, in a language it does not read.
1. The facts as officially published 基本案情
2025年7月21日，葡萄牙籍某公司所有的玻利维亚籍货轮受台风“韦帕”影响，在途经某海域时因高位搁浅、无力自救，存在因船底破损、燃油泄露致海洋环境污染的风险，该轮随即向中国海事部门紧急呼救。中国某救助打捞公司接到当地某海事局的通知后，对该轮实施拖带救援并完成救助作业。救助完成后，中国某救助打捞公司要求葡萄牙籍某公司支付救助费用等，但葡萄牙籍某公司对此不予认可，双方为此产生纠纷。某海事局经组织双方进行多轮调解未果后，依据“航运争议多元解纷中心协作机制”，引导当事人向海口海事法院提起诉讼。
On 2025-07-21 a Bolivian-flagged cargo vessel owned by a Portuguese company, affected by a typhoon, grounded high while passing through a sea area and was unable to free itself, giving rise to a risk of marine pollution from hull damage and fuel oil leakage; the vessel issued an emergency call to the Chinese maritime authorities. On notification from a local maritime safety administration, a Chinese salvage company towed the vessel and completed the salvage operation. After completion the salvage company sought payment of salvage costs and other sums from the Portuguese company, which did not accept the claim, and a dispute arose. After several rounds of mediation organised by the maritime safety administration failed, the parties were directed, under a cooperation mechanism of a shipping dispute diversified resolution centre, to bring proceedings before the Haikou Maritime Court.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Notice how the defendant arrived in court. The official text records a vessel in difficulty, a salvage operation, a demand for costs that the owner did not accept, and proceedings before a Chinese maritime court. Nothing in that sequence began with a choice of forum or a contract negotiated in China. Anyone operating vessels, aircraft, plant or vehicles across borders should treat that route into a foreign court as a live possibility, distinct from the contract disputes they plan for.
Notice also the order of events. Administrative mediation came first and failed; litigation came second. The official text separately records that the parties did not dispute the facts or the evidence and differed widely on the salvage costs. It does not explain how the earlier round produced that position, and this page does not supply an explanation.
2. The official holding 裁判要旨（官方原文）
一是主动释明法律政策，引导双方合意调解。本案双方当事人虽对救助费用分歧较大，但对案件事实及证据无异议且均有调解意愿。考虑到葡萄牙籍某公司所属货轮需赶航完成装载任务，还面临台风临近的航程延误风险，合议庭坚持“如我在诉”，换位思考，主动引导双方当事人先行调解，促进纠纷高效化解。
First, explaining the law and policy on the court's own initiative and guiding the parties towards consensual mediation. Although the parties differed widely on the salvage costs, they did not dispute the facts or the evidence and both were willing to mediate. Taking into account that the vessel belonging to the Portuguese company had to make a passage to complete a loading task and faced the risk of delay from an approaching typhoon, the panel guided the parties to mediate first, so that the dispute could be resolved efficiently.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
The schedule pressure is in the official text: the panel took into account that the vessel had a loading task to complete and faced the risk of delay from an approaching typhoon. The official text records no equivalent constraint on the other side, and does not say what weight the point carried. As a general matter, a party whose asset is schedule-sensitive should price the delay before sitting down, rather than discovering the cost at the mediation table.
同时，积极协调相关外轮代理公司提供免费翻译服务，以“双语调解”全程保障葡萄牙籍某公司的诉讼参与权，有效破解沟通障碍。
三是运用“一网一库”，厘清争点定分止争。发挥法答网、案例库作用，明确裁判规则，向双方当事人深入解读国际公约及海难救助案件的裁判规则，让葡萄牙籍某公司明晰其应当承担的法律责任。同时引导中方当事人结合外方支付能力合理调整诉求，最终促成双方达成调解协议，葡萄牙籍某公司一次性向中国某救助打捞公司支付5万美元救助费用。
At the same time, the court arranged for the relevant foreign vessel agency company to provide free translation services, and conducted bilingual mediation throughout so as to protect the Portuguese company's right to participate in the proceedings and to overcome the communication barrier. Third, using the judicial answer network and the case database to clarify the issues: the panel explained to both parties the international conventions and the adjudication rules applicable to salvage cases, so that the Portuguese company understood the legal liability it was to bear. The court also guided the Chinese party to adjust its claim reasonably in the light of the foreign party's ability to pay, and the parties reached a mediation agreement under which the Portuguese company paid the Chinese salvage company USD 50,000 in salvage costs in a single payment.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Three separate things happened in that paragraph, and a foreign defendant should keep them apart. Translation was arranged. Adjudication rules were explained. The claim was adjusted with reference to what the defendant could pay. Of the three, only the translation arrangement engages a procedural right; the second is an explanation, and the third is a feature of a negotiated outcome rather than of a judgment.
The explanation point deserves care. The judicial answer network and the case database are internal working resources used to identify how similar questions have been handled. They are useful for predicting an outcome. They are not, in themselves, a rule that binds the parties, and a foreign defendant should ask which statutory provision or convention actually governs each item on the bill.
3. Practical guidance 律师实务提示
Treat translation as your decision, not only as a courtesy. 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十三条 provides that the people's courts use the language commonly used in China in foreign-related cases, and that where a party requests translation it may be provided at that party's expense. A foreign defendant is therefore entitled to instruct and pay for its own translator, whoever else has offered to help. Where the offer comes from a party with a commercial relationship to the dispute, that is a reason to consider instructing your own, not a reason to complain.
Check who may represent you before you engage anyone. 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十四条 provides that a foreign enterprise or organisation that needs a lawyer to act in Chinese proceedings must instruct a lawyer of China. Foreign counsel remain valuable for strategy and for the interface with head office, but the person on the record has to be qualified in China.
Build the costs defence on the statutory factors. 《中华人民共和国海商法》第一百八十条 sets out ten factors for determining a salvage reward, including the salved value, the danger, the skill and effort, the time and expenditure, and the promptness of the service — and its second paragraph caps the reward at the salved value of the vessel and other property. Note what the list does not contain: the payer's ability to pay. That is why ability to pay can shape a mediated figure while a contested figure is argued on the listed factors and the cap.
Finally, mind the jurisdiction that brought you there. 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十六条 allows a Chinese court to take a foreign-related case against a defendant with no domicile in China where the place of contracting, of performance, of the subject matter, of attachable property, of the tort or of a representative office is in China — and a vessel in Chinese waters is attachable property. Assume the forum, and negotiate on the merits.
4. What this means in your situation 把要点落到你的处境
第二百七十三条 人民法院审理涉外民事案件，应当使用中华人民共和国通用的语言、文字。当事人要求提供翻译的，可以提供，费用由当事人承担。
第二百七十四条 外国人、无国籍人、外国企业和组织在人民法院起诉、应诉，需要委托律师代理诉讼的，必须委托中华人民共和国的律师。
第一百七十九条 救助方对遇险的船舶和其他财产的救助，取得效果的，有权获得救助报酬；救助未取得效果的，除本法第一百八十二条或者其他法律另有规定或者合同另有约定外，无权获得救助款项。
第一百八十条 确定救助报酬，应当体现对救助作业的鼓励，并综合考虑下列各项因素……救助报酬不得超过船舶和其他财产的获救价值。
Civil Procedure Law, article 273: in hearing foreign-related civil cases the people's courts shall use the language and characters commonly used in China; where a party requests translation, it may be provided, at that party's expense. Article 274: where a foreign national, stateless person, foreign enterprise or organisation needs to instruct a lawyer to act in proceedings before a people's court, it must instruct a lawyer of China. Maritime Code, article 179: a salvor who salves a vessel or other property in danger is entitled to a salvage reward where the salvage produces a result; where it does not, the salvor is not entitled to salvage payment save as otherwise provided in article 182 or another law, or agreed in the contract. Article 180: in determining the salvage reward, encouragement of salvage operations shall be reflected and the listed factors considered together; the reward may not exceed the salved value of the vessel and other property.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
| What the official release records | What it turns on | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative mediation failed, then proceedings were brought | Two forums in sequence | Positions taken before the maritime authority carry into court; record them carefully |
| Facts and evidence undisputed, amount disputed | What is actually in issue | Argue quantum on the statutory factors, not on liability you have already conceded |
| Bilingual mediation with translation arranged by the court | Language of the proceedings | You may instruct and pay for your own translator; treat that as a live option |
| Adjudication rules explained from working resources | Prediction, not binding rule | Ask which provision or convention governs each item on the bill |
| USD 50,000 paid in a single payment | A negotiated figure under time pressure | Where your asset is schedule-sensitive, price the delay before you sit down |
- Misconception: a foreign owner can only be sued in China under a contract signed there. In fact: the official 基本案情 records that in 本案 the parties were directed 「向海口海事法院提起诉讼」 after administrative mediation failed.
- Misconception: if the facts are agreed there is nothing left to argue. In fact: the official text records that in 该案 the parties 「对救助费用分歧较大，但对案件事实及证据无异议」.
- Misconception: you must use whatever translation arrangement the court makes. In fact: the official text records only that in 本案 the court 「积极协调相关外轮代理公司提供免费翻译服务」; the statutory position on party-funded translation is set out in section 4 above.
- Misconception: what you can afford is irrelevant to the outcome. In fact: the official 调解方法及结果 records that in 该案 the court 「引导中方当事人结合外方支付能力合理调整诉求」 in the course of mediation.
- The Chinese rules that apply to you
- Published cases involving foreign nationals
- Legal services for foreign nationals in China
- Foreign Nationals Before Chinese Courts After the 2023 Civil Procedure Law Amendment (pending publication)
- Suing in Urumqi Without Coming to China: Video-Witnessed Authorisation and an Online Settlement (forthcoming in this batch)
- ① 最高人民法院《第三批涉外商事海事调解典型案例》案例六《中国某救助打捞公司与葡萄牙籍某公司海难救助合同纠纷案》，2026 年 4 月 16 日发布，本批共 6 件，官方页 https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/497661.html 。
- ② 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号；官方载明受理法院为海口海事法院，当事人只写「中国某救助打捞公司」「葡萄牙籍某公司」「某海事局」，船舶只写「玻利维亚籍货轮」，本页照录。
- ③ 本页引用《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十三条、第二百七十四条、第二百七十六条。三条均为官方发布文本未涉及的现行规则，本页仅作提示，不是本案的裁判依据。依 2023 年 9 月 1 日通过、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行的修正合并本，官方页 http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/886331ece0f6611a370642e89f08c6.html 。
- ④ 本页引用《中华人民共和国海商法》第一百七十九条、第一百八十条。两条同为官方发布文本未涉及的现行规则提示。官方页 http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/027bcd14922a9b35ad14e2b03fc490.html 。
- Status and timing note 效力与时点提示：本案为最高人民法院发布的典型案例，供审判参考，不具有指导性案例的参照效力；in English, it is published for reference and does not carry the effect of a guiding case. 官方发布文本未载明任何条号，本页所引条号一律为现行规则提示。本页就支付能力所作的对照，只以海商法第一百八十条列举因素的文本为限，不评价本案调解的当否。程序性事项 subject to the current published requirements of the accepting authority。
- 本页案例引自官方公开发布，非本所承办案件展示，不构成对具体个案的法律意见。This case is drawn from an official public release and is not a showcase of matters handled by this firm, and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case.
This article is general legal research and does not constitute legal advice; by law, a law firm may not guarantee case outcomes. 本文为一般性法律研究，不构成法律意见；依据法律规定，律所不得承诺办案结果。
