29 March 2021
The canal reopened; the voyage was still interrupted
Boskalis announced that Ever Given had been successfully refloated at 15:05 local time, following work with the Suez Canal Authority. It described dredging about 30,000 cubic metres of sand and deploying harbour and seagoing tugs. The operation restored passage through the canal. That solved the immediate blockage, but it did not mean the vessel’s own cargo was delivered or its financial disputes were settled. The ship was taken out of the channel for inspection.
Successful refloating · Boskalis · 29 March 2021 · Salvage-contract appeal judgment · 19 March 2024
7 July 2021
A separate agreement allowed the ship and crew to leave
The UK P&I Club confirmed that the ship and crew had departed the Great Bitter Lake after a formal agreement between the owners and the Suez Canal Authority. The International Chamber of Shipping also recorded the signing of the release agreement, after the vessel had remained impounded. The insurer described more than three months of negotiations. The release was an established outcome; these statements did not publish the settlement amount. It must not be confused with the separate English dispute about SMIT’s salvage remuneration.
Ship release and settlement · International Chamber of Shipping · July 2021 · Insurer’s dated release statement · UK P&I · 7 July 2021
29 July 2021
The cargo finally reached a European unloading terminal
ECT confirmed Ever Given was moored at its Rotterdam Delta terminal on 29 July. Its handling plan called for all continental European containers to be unloaded there, including cargo bound for Hamburg, which would continue on another ship. The vessel would then sail to Felixstowe with the UK containers. This was a concrete resumption of cargo handling months after the grounding. It does not establish when every customer received a shipment, whether every consignment remained saleable, or who ultimately recovered each delay-related loss.
4 December 2023 · report published
Maersk’s separate case was withdrawn
Container News reported an out-of-court settlement in Maersk’s claim over disruption from the blockage. A Maersk spokesperson confirmed to the publication that the case had been withdrawn and declined further comment. The report did not disclose the settlement terms. This concerned a shipping line’s losses from delays, separately from the canal authority’s earlier agreement and SMIT’s salvage-fee claim. Withdrawal of this case does not establish that every affected cargo owner recovered their losses.
19 March 2024
The salvage dispute survived an appeal
England’s Court of Appeal dismissed the owners’ appeal on the preliminary contract issue. It agreed that no binding remuneration contract had been concluded in the exchanges under consideration. That meant the asserted contract did not dispose of SMIT’s salvage claim. This judgment did not set a final salvage payment or award compensation to every business affected by the blockage. The legal question was narrower than the much larger commercial disruption.
22 January 2025 · research reported
A study put a price on delays—not a compensation payout
A University of Gothenburg account of a research-team study described modelled losses of nearly US$89 million for Maersk Line, including US$76 million in inventory-holding costs. The model used ship data and included shipping and environmental costs; the researchers lacked data for every affected vessel. Those figures are estimates under a stated method. They are not a court award, a confirmed insurer payment, or a total covering all companies and customers. They help explain why refloating the ship was only one stage of the aftermath.
Research on disruption costs · University of Gothenburg · 22 January 2025
21 June 2026 · report published
Later reporting described a settlement of the salvage bill
Vesseltracker reported on 19 June 2026 that Boskalis and the Japanese shipowner had reached an amicable settlement of their salvage-cost dispute, with financial details undisclosed. Schuttevaer’s subsequent report also described a settlement. This brings the reported salvage-fee dispute to a different stage from the 2024 appeal, which concerned whether a binding remuneration contract existed. The public reports do not establish the agreed amount, payment schedule or the outcome of every cargo-owner claim.
Salvage settlement report · Vesseltracker · 19 June 2026 · Full salvage-settlement report · Schuttevaer · 21 June 2026 · subscription may be required; financial terms not independently verified
The evidence
Sources for this update
- 01Successful refloating · Boskalis · 29 March 2021
- 02Ship release and settlement · International Chamber of Shipping · July 2021
- 03Arrival and cargo plan · ECT Hutchison Ports · 29 July 2021
- 04Salvage-contract appeal judgment · 19 March 2024
- 05Research on disruption costs · University of Gothenburg · 22 January 2025
- 06Full salvage-settlement report · Schuttevaer · 21 June 2026 · subscription may be required; financial terms not independently verified
- 07Insurer’s dated release statement · UK P&I · 7 July 2021
- 08Maersk case withdrawal · Container News · 4 December 2023
- 09Salvage settlement report · Vesseltracker · 19 June 2026
Where the story stands
The story continues when the evidence does.
The verified record establishes refloating, release and a cargo-handling plan. The latest settlement account is explicitly attributed reporting, with primary financial terms still unverified. Future checks will look for settlement records and any separate cargo or delay-claim outcomes. No pending case is declared concluded merely because it was not found in a search.