Goldy Seven
1 seafarer abandoned on the Goldy Seven (IMO 9135731, flag United Republic of Tanzania) in Bissau, Guinea-Bissau, 9 November 2025. ILO case 1551, status: Resolved.
- Status
- Resolved
- Abandonment ID
- 1551
- IMO Number
- 9135731
- Flag
- United Republic of Tanzania
- Port of Abandonment
- Bissau, Guinea-Bissau
- Abandonment Date
- 9 November 2025
- Notification Date
- 6 December 2025
- Seafarers
- 1
- Reporting Org.
- International Transport Workers' Federation
Circumstances
Outstanding wages for 3 months
Seafarers applied to insurer. No
Insurance certificate dates: TBC
Updates
24 February 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
Seafarer repatriated with owed wages. Resolved.
13 February 2026: Other
(From the legal representative of the vessel owner)
Dear All Relevant Authorities
First and foremost, we sincerely thank you for your recent correspondence and for maintaining transparency regarding the current status of the MV Goldy Seven (IMO 9135731) case.
However, we respectfully submit that the present registration of this matter as an abandonment case appears to be based on a one-sided narrative, which has unfortunately resulted in a serious misunderstanding of the actual facts.
With due respect, this case is not a situation where a vessel owner simply failed to pay wages and arbitrarily disembarked a seafarer. The factual circumstances are materially different and supported by documented evidence.
The Chief Engineer in question repeatedly demonstrated gross negligence and professional incompetence. Taking advantage of the vessel owner’s limited technical knowledge, he caused significant damage to the main engine and related machinery. There were approximately seventy-two (72) engine shutdowns during voyages due to his negligence and failure to properly perform his duties. These repeated shutdowns placed the vessel, crew, and voyage at serious operational and safety risk.
Furthermore:
The Chief Engineer refused to comply with the lawful instructions of the Captain.
There were incidents of onboard conflict and misconduct.
Shore workshops were unnecessarily engaged for repairs that could have been performed onboard, raising legitimate concerns regarding possible improper benefit or commission arrangements.
Verified engine room logbooks clearly demonstrate failure to discharge professional responsibilities.
As a direct result of his actions, the vessel owner suffered financial damages amounting to approximately EUR 60,000. Supporting invoices, damage liability documentation, and technical reports were submitted to the relevant authorities.
Under the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006), particularly Regulation 2.5 (Repatriation) and related provisions concerning abandonment, abandonment is defined as failure to cover the cost of repatriation, failure to provide maintenance and support, or unilateral severance of ties including non-payment of wages for a specified period. This case does not meet those criteria in substance, as the dispute concerns liability for serious professional misconduct and damages caused to the vessel.
This raises two fundamental legal and ethical questions:
Does a vessel owner not have the legal right to withhold wages where substantial, documented damage has been caused by a crew member’s negligence, particularly when liability is under investigation?
Is it consistent with principles of natural justice to designate a vessel as “abandoned” based solely on one party’s statement, without conducting a full investigation into the owner’s submitted evidence, including damage liability and professional misconduct?
The vessel owner formally requested:
A complete and impartial investigation.
Verification of the Chief Engineer’s Certificate of Competency (CoC) and supporting documents.
Technical evaluation of his professional performance.
Proper assessment of the EUR 60,000 damage claim.
Avoidance of any one-sided determination without hearing both parties.
Despite these requests, no meaningful consideration appears to have been given to the owner’s documented submissions. The result is severe reputational damage at the international level, with the vessel owner effectively being portrayed negatively on an international database without a balanced review of the dispute.
If the vessel owner were genuinely abusive or unjust, one must reasonably ask: why did the Chief Engineer previously renew his contract with the same owner?
This matter represents a commercial and professional dispute between the vessel owner and the engineer. Significant efforts were made to resolve it amicably. Unfortunately, instead of a fair investigation, the owner now faces international reputational harm.
With the utmost respect, justice must be balanced. Protection of seafarers is essential, but so too is the protection of vessel owners from unverified or incomplete allegations. International maritime governance must reflect impartiality and due process.
We therefore respectfully request:
A comprehensive and neutral review of all submitted evidence.
Publication of the vessel owner’s full position alongside the existing entry.
Reconsideration of the abandonment classification pending objective investigation.
We remain fully prepared to cooperate and provide any additional documentation required to fair and lawful outcome.
13 February 2026: International Maritime Organisation
The request for temporary suspension of publication of information received is duly noted and recorded on the joint ILO/IMO database.
In regard of the request received from Mr. *** for a review by the Port State or Flag State, contending that this case does not constitute a seafarer abandonment, it may be helpful to note that according to the applicable procedures of the IMO/ILO Joint Database of Abandonment of Seafarers a reported case of abandonment can only be considered as being resolved if, and only if, ILO has received clear advice from the Member State or relevant organization that reported the abandonment that:
(i) the totality of the crew has been successfully repatriated; and
(ii) the totality of all outstanding remuneration and contractual entitlements have been paid and duly received by all the crewmembers.
Therefore, I herewith would like to invite ITF, who initially reported this abandonment case, to provide for an update on the status of this case. All information received will be duly recorded on the joint IMO/ILO database on abandonment of seafarers.
13 February 2026: International Labour Organization
Dear IMO,
I am writing to share the attached request from the legal representative of the vessel owner regarding the abandonment case of MV Goldy Seven (IMO 9135731), which was reported by the ITF on November 9, 2025.
The vessel owner has requested a review by the Port State or Flag State, contending that this case does not constitute a seafarer abandonment. We kindly ask you to take the necessary steps to ensure that the Port State or Flag State provides the vessel owner with the relevant advice and guidance regarding this matter.
Dear the legal representative of the shipowner,
Regarding the owner's request to suspend the publication on the database, we intend to maintain the current status of the record for the following reasons, as explained in our previous correspondence, especially in the absence of any withdrawal request from the reporting organization:
1. In accordance with established database procedures, the non-public circulation period with relevant stakeholders has already elapsed, and the case is now formally registered.
2. Under these procedures, if there is a differing view, the practice is to publish those comments alongside the entry rather than removing or suspending the record.
3. To date, no formal objections regarding this registration have been received from the Flag State, Port State, or the Seafarer-supplying State.
Dear ITF abandonment team,
Furthermore, we invite the ITF, as the original reporter of this case, to provide any comments or feedback regarding the vessel owner's latest submission.
We sincerely appreciate all your continued cooperation and understanding regarding the consistent management of the abandonment database.
13 February 2026: Other
(From the legal representative of the vessel owner)
Thank you for your acknowledgment and for confirming receipt of our previous communication. We sincerely appreciate your response and your willingness to reflect our submission in the database in order to ensure a balanced record.
We respectfully request that, until a final determination of this matter is reached, the publication of MV Goldy Seven and its registered owner on the ILO platform be temporarily suspended. The ongoing international visibility of the case, while still unresolved, may cause serious reputational damage to the company and the vessel’s owner. Such damage to credibility and commercial standing at the international level may prove difficult to remedy in the future.
At the same time, we fully recognize that if, after complete review, our company or the vessel’s owner is found responsible in this matter, the ILO has every right to publish the relevant findings and details on its platform.
However, at present, the facts appear to have been presented from one perspective only, resulting in the vessel owner being perceived as entirely at fault. In our previous correspondence, we have already submitted documented and verifiable evidence supporting our position. We respectfully request that all submitted materials be carefully reviewed to ensure fairness and balance.
While ensuring justice and protection for seafarers is of utmost importance, we also trust that the legitimate rights of the vessel owner will be equally safeguarded and protected.
Thank you once again for dedicating your valuable time and attention to reviewing this dispute.
13 February 2026: International Labour Organization
I acknowledge receipt of your message regarding MV Goldy Seven (IMO 9135731). Regarding your inquiry, I would like to provide the following explanation based on our operational procedures.
This case was first reported by the ITF on December 6, 2025. Following a period of circulation involving the port State, flag State, and seafarer-supplying State, it was published on the ILO/IMO Abandonment Database on January 5, 2026. According to the ITF's initial report, the relevant parties, including the shipowner and managers, were directly notified of the abandonment situation as early as November 25, 2025. As of February 11, 2026, no comments had been received from any stakeholders; consequently, the case is currently recorded as "unresolved" in our system.
While this case was published after the circulation period without any initial objections, the procedure for the database allows for "different points of view" received after publication to be reflected on the database. Accordingly, to ensure a balanced and accurate record of the case, the information you provided will be added to the entry.
Since the ITF is the original reporting organization and was copied on this correspondence, I also invite them to provide any further information or comments in response to your submission.
Please note that the ILO is not mandated to intervene in individual labour disputes nor to render judgment on whether a specific case constitutes abandonment. For any enquiries regarding the application or interpretation of MLC, 2006 regulations, I advise that communications be channeled through the ILO’s constituents, such as relevant governments or representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.
I trust this information is helpful for your records.
12 February 2026: Other
(From the legal representative of the vessel owner)
I write further to my previous correspondence in my capacity as Legal Representative of the vessel Owner MV Goldy Seven regarding Abandonment Case No. 01551.
For the sake of accuracy and fairness, we respectfully submit additional material facts that must be considered before any final conclusion is maintained under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006).
The Chief Engineer, Mr. ***, was not removed from the vessel solely at the decision of the shipowner. He was taken off the vessel by local police authorities due to his involvement in onboard fights and serious disciplinary disturbances. His removal was a consequence of his own conduct onboard and not an act of abandonment by the owner.
Furthermore:
- He repeatedly engaged in conflicts and disruptive behavior onboard.
- He acted independently and against established command structure.
- He refused to properly perform assigned engineering duties.
- The Engine Room Log Book clearly reflects negligence, lack of maintenance compliance, and failure to carry out required technical responsibilities.
- Instead of rectifying deficiencies, he caused additional mechanical and operational damage to the vessel.
The Captain of the vessel had formally dismissed him from service due to misconduct and failure to perform his contractual obligations. This dismissal was based on documented professional grounds.
As a direct result of his negligence and mismanagement, the vessel sustained technical and operational damages exceeding EUR 60,000. Throughout his employment, he repeatedly assured the shipowner that all issues would be corrected and represented himself as fully competent. The owner, having limited technical expertise, relied in good faith on his Chief Engineer. That trust was unfortunately misused.
Under general maritime law principles, where a crew member’s proven negligence results in financial loss, the shipowner may have legal grounds to pursue damages or lawful set-off subject to proper procedures. Therefore, this matter represents a disputed contractual and liability issue rather than abandonment within the meaning of Standard A2.5.2 of MLC 2006.
We respectfully submit that publishing this case as abandonment without full bilateral investigation is causing substantial reputational and financial harm to the vessel and its ownership.
We are submitting all supporting documentation,
Damage Liability As Submission Report
CE final Report
Verified invoices
We trust that principles of due process, fairness, and balanced assessment under MLC 2006 will be upheld.
Kindly confirm receipt and advise on the formal review procedure.
6 December 2025: International Transport Workers' Federation
The chief engineer was abandoned in Guinea-Bissau, in a hotel without food or money.