Predictably, I guess, "the plot thickens":
https://www.businessinsider.com/ever-gi ... age-2021-5
The vessel has been held in an artificial lake along the canal until its insurers and Egyptian authorities come to an agreement. Its crew members have since been given permission to go home.
A recording from the ship that was granted to the court also showed disagreements between SCA pilots and its control centre over whether the ship should pass through the canal, Reuters reported.
Lawyers representing Shoei Kisen Kaisha said the ship should have been chaperoned by at least two tug boats, "but this didn't happen."
The Japanese company is seeking $100,000 in initial compensation for losses linked to the ship's detainment
Well, at least the crew is "outta there"; but in the meantime, any perishable cargo aboard has since "perished", the remaining cargo has been held from market, and the shipowners have been deprived of the opportunity to determine if their vessel remains seaworthy, and if so, the voyages that could have been completed and the revenue earned from them.
To keep this topic rail related, let's throw in the adverse effect upon revenue that various European rail freight operators (private concerns operating over State owned ROW's) and if the vessel (I simply can't refer to such a "barge" in the feminine gender) were to call on the East Coast after its intended port of Rotterdam, that which Chessie and Topper have lost.
But as has been noted here, Admiralty Law is very complex and much of which has never been formally delineated in Code. Therefore, much of it is which side can outlawyer the other. I think you'll find the number or firms worldwide that hold expertise in such are quite few in number.
Addendum: reporting from Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-05-23/