Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty) (13 March 2017)

Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty) (13 March 2017)

The crossing rule (Rule 15) did not apply because Alexandra 1 was approaching the entrance to a narrow channel with the intention of entering it, and Ever Smart was navigating within the channel. The narrow channel rule (Rule 9) applied to Ever Smart, requiring her to keep to the starboard side, which she failed to do. Both vessels failed in their respective duties: Ever Smart breached the narrow channel rule and failed to keep a proper lookout; Alexandra 1 failed to navigate so as to be on the starboard side of the channel upon entry and failed to take timely avoiding action. Liability was apportioned 80% to Ever Smart and 20% to Alexandra 1.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty)
Parties
Claimant (ad 2015 000131), Defendant (ad 2016 000017): Nautical Challenge Ltd; Defendant (ad 2015 000131), Claimant (ad 2016 000017): Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Liability Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Liability apportioned: Ever Smart 80%, Alexandra 1 20%.
Legal Topics
Collision Regulations, Narrow Channel Rule, Crossing Rule, Lookout Obligations, Liability Apportionment
Admiralty Maritime Law Collision Regulations Narrow Channel Rule Crossing Rule Lookout Obligations Liability Apportionment

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nautical Challenge Ltd

Claimant (ad 2015 000131), Defendant (ad 2016 000017)

Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd

Defendant (ad 2015 000131), Claimant (ad 2016 000017)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Liability Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the crossing rule (Rule 15) of the Collision Regulations apply when one vessel is navigating in a narrow channel and another is approaching to enter it?
  2. 2 Did either vessel breach the Collision Regulations, and if so, were such breaches causative of the collision?
  3. 3 What is the proper apportionment of liability for the collision?

Ratio Decidendi

The crossing rule (Rule 15) did not apply because Alexandra 1 was approaching the entrance to a narrow channel with the intention of entering it, and Ever Smart was navigating within the channel. The narrow channel rule (Rule 9) applied to Ever Smart, requiring her to keep to the starboard side, which she failed to do. Both vessels failed in their respective duties: Ever Smart breached the narrow channel rule and failed to keep a proper lookout; Alexandra 1 failed to navigate so as to be on the starboard side of the channel upon entry and failed to take timely avoiding action. Liability was apportioned 80% to Ever Smart and 20% to Alexandra 1.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: Ever Smart 80%, Alexandra 1 20%.

Orders

  • Judgment for Nautical Challenge Ltd for 80% of its damages subject to reduction for 20% contributory fault.
  • Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd to recover 20% of its damages from Nautical Challenge Ltd.