Mineral Dampier, Owners and/or Demise Charterers Of v Hanjin Madras, Owners and/or Demise Charterers Of [2001] EWCA Civ 1278 (31 July 2001)

Mineral Dampier, Owners and/or Demise Charterers Of v Hanjin Madras, Owners and/or Demise Charterers Of [2001] EWCA Civ 1278 (31 July 2001)

Neither vessel was to blame before visual contact at 3 miles; after visual contact, the Hanjin Madras was substantially more at fault for failing to take timely and adequate action to keep out of the way, as required by Rule 15, and for inadequate helm action. The Mineral Dampier was at fault only for not taking evasive action under Rule 17(a)(ii) when it became apparent the Hanjin Madras was not taking appropriate action, but this fault was less serious and mitigated by the VHF exchange. The apportionment of liability at 80:20 in favour of the Mineral Dampier was just.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1278
Parties
Claimants/respondents: The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Mineral Dampier; Defendants/appellants: The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Hanjin Madras
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Action in Rem / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collision Regulations, Apportionment of Liability, Restricted Visibility Navigation, Use of VHF in Navigation
Admiralty Maritime Law Collision Regulations Apportionment of Liability Restricted Visibility Navigation Use of VHF in Navigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Mineral Dampier

Claimants/respondents

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Hanjin Madras

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Action in Rem / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether either vessel was in breach of Rule 19 (restricted visibility) before visual contact
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of liability (80:20) was correct
  3. 3 Whether the use of VHF contributed to fault or liability

Ratio Decidendi

Neither vessel was to blame before visual contact at 3 miles; after visual contact, the Hanjin Madras was substantially more at fault for failing to take timely and adequate action to keep out of the way, as required by Rule 15, and for inadequate helm action. The Mineral Dampier was at fault only for not taking evasive action under Rule 17(a)(ii) when it became apparent the Hanjin Madras was not taking appropriate action, but this fault was less serious and mitigated by the VHF exchange. The apportionment of liability at 80:20 in favour of the Mineral Dampier was just.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs summarily assessed in the sum of £23,300 payable by the appellants