Offshore Energy
  • Fossil Energy
  • Subsea
  • Alternative Fuels
  • Hydrogen
  • Marine Energy
  • More news
JobsNewsletter
Offshore Energy logo

Your trusted source for global offshore energy news, part of the Navingo network.

Topics
  • Fossil Energy
  • Subsea
  • Alternative Fuels
  • Hydrogen
  • Marine Energy
Network
  • Offshore Energy
  • Offshore Wind
  • NavalToday
  • Dredging Today
Company
  • Advertising
  • Newsletter
  • Jobs
  • Report your news
  • Privacy

© 2026 Navingo. All rights reserved.

Home›Seismic›PGS appeals court decision in seismic vessel case
Seismic

April 20, 2016 · about 10 years ago

PGS appeals court decision in seismic vessel case

Norwegian marine seismic acquisition specialist PGS has appealed a court decision made in a case it had launched against GC Rieber Shipping’s subsidiary over a seismic vessel. To remind, the Bergen district court in March dismissed a 9 million euros claim by PGS Geophysical (UK) Limited against GC R

2 minutes read
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Email

Norwegian marine seismic acquisition specialist PGS has appealed a court decision made in a case it had launched against GC Rieber Shipping’s subsidiary over a seismic vessel.

To remind, the Bergen district court in March dismissed a 9 million euros claim by PGS Geophysical (UK) Limited against GC Rieber Shipping ASA’s subsidiary Armada Seismic Invest II AS.

The court then awarded Armada full legal fees in the amount of 3.4 million Norwegian crowns.

According to a statement by GC Rieber Shipping on Tuesday, PGS has appealed the decision.

Dispute from 2012

The dispute over a seismic vessel stems from June 2012 when Arrow Seismic Invest (now: PGS Geophysical (UK) Limited) launched a claim alleging that Armada had acted negligently when the company took delivery of the seismic vessel hull 533, the Polar Duchess, in October 2011 and claimed 9 million euros in damages.

The ship was built by the Factorias Vulcano shipyard in Spain.

Arrow, which at the time of delivery had a pending second priority attachment over the shipyard’s claim for payment, asserted that Armada’s payment was made to the wrong party when the first priority mortgagee was paid.

Following the claim, Armada said it had made the payment in good faith on basis of thorough documentation and in accordance with ordinary security law and said Arrow’s claim for damages was without merit.

In a statement on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 GC Rieber Shipping said Armada reiterated its view that the claim is unfounded.

“Armada will continue to defend itself against the claim before the Court of Appeal, from which a judgment may be expected in 2017,” GC Rieber Shipping said.

Reach the Offshore Energy industry in one go!

Offshore Energy is read by thousands of professionals every day.

Increase your visibility with banners, tell your story with a branded article, and showcase your expertise with a full-page company profile in our business directory.

CONTACT

Follow Offshore Energy on:

Filed under

SeismicNews

Daily Offshore Energy News in Your Mailbox

Join thousands of industry professionals who start their day with our newsletter.

Trending Now

  1. 1TotalEnergies’ Caspian Sea gas and condensate field expansion is a go
  2. 2TotalEnergies earmarks annual spend of up to $17 billion over next five years
  3. 3Fugro performs ultra-deepwater AUV survey off East Malaysia
  4. 4Southeast Asian oil field development clears key environmental hurdle to move toward FID

Daily Offshore Energy News in Your Mailbox

Join thousands of industry professionals who start their day with our newsletter.

Subscribe free