Bow Spring, owner of the Ship v Owners of the Ship Manzanillo II [2004] EWCA Civ 1007 (28 July 2004)

Bow Spring, owner of the Ship v Owners of the Ship Manzanillo II [2004] EWCA Civ 1007 (28 July 2004)

The MANZANILLO II was at fault for failing to make her intentions clear and for not altering course to avoid impeding the BOW SPRING, which was restricted to the channel. The BOW SPRING was also at fault for overreacting by beaching herself rather than reducing speed. Both vessels were equally to blame, and liability was properly apportioned at 50% each.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1007
Parties
Claimants/respondents: The Owners of the Ship 'Bow Spring'; Defendants/appellants: The Owners of the Ship 'Manzanillo II'
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Rem / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collision at Sea, Apportionment of Liability, Navigation Rules, Causation, Procedural Fairness
Admiralty Maritime Law Tort Collision at Sea Apportionment of Liability Navigation Rules Causation Procedural Fairness

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners of the Ship 'Bow Spring'

Claimants/respondents

The Owners of the Ship 'Manzanillo II'

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the MANZANILLO II was at fault for the grounding of the BOW SPRING
  2. 2 Whether the BOW SPRING was solely or partly to blame for her own grounding
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of liability between the vessels

Ratio Decidendi

The MANZANILLO II was at fault for failing to make her intentions clear and for not altering course to avoid impeding the BOW SPRING, which was restricted to the channel. The BOW SPRING was also at fault for overreacting by beaching herself rather than reducing speed. Both vessels were equally to blame, and liability was properly apportioned at 50% each.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents/claimants to have their costs of and occasioned by the appeal on the standard basis to be assessed if not agreed.