Bow Spring, owner of the Ship v Owners of the Ship Manzanillo II

Bow Spring, owner of the Ship v Owners of the Ship Manzanillo II

The MANZANILLO II was at fault for failing to make her intentions clear and not altering course sufficiently to avoid impeding the BOW SPRING, which was restricted to the channel. The BOW SPRING's decision to ground was a hurried over-reaction but was caused by the fault of the MANZANILLO II. Both vessels were equally to blame, and liability was apportioned at 50% each.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Owners of the Ship 'Bow Spring'; Defendant/appellant: 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 Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collision at Sea, Apportionment of Liability, Navigation Rules, Procedural Fairness
Admiralty Maritime Law Collision at Sea Apportionment of Liability Navigation Rules 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners of the Ship 'Bow Spring'

Claimant/respondent

The Owners of the Ship 'Manzanillo II'

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem / Appeal From High Court Judgment

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 the 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 not altering course sufficiently to avoid impeding the BOW SPRING, which was restricted to the channel. The BOW SPRING's decision to ground was a hurried over-reaction but was caused by the fault of the MANZANILLO II. Both vessels were equally to blame, and liability was 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