Monford Management Limited (The Owners of the KIVELI) v Afina Navigation Limited (The Owners of the AFINA I)

Monford Management Limited (The Owners of the KIVELI) v Afina Navigation Limited (The Owners of the AFINA I)

A risk of collision arose at 05:39 when the vessels were in sight of each other, on nearly reciprocal courses, and should have been treated as a head-on situation under Rule 14. Both vessels were obliged to turn to starboard. KIVELI failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to recognise the head-on situation, made inappropriate alterations to port, and ultimately turned to port, causing the collision. AFINA I’s turn to starboard was late but correct. KIVELI’s breaches were of much greater causative potency and blameworthiness. Liability is apportioned 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I.

Parties
Claimant: Monford Management Limited; Defendant: Afina Navigation Limited; Claimant: Afina Navigation Limited; Defendant: Monford Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Consolidated Actions / Final Judgment on Liability and Apportionment
Outcome
Liability apportioned: 80% to KIVELI, 20% to AFINA I.
Legal Topics
Collision Regulations, Apportionment of Liability, Seamanship, Look Out Requirements, Risk of Collision, Action to Avoid Collision, Head on Situation, Crossing Situation, Sound and Light Signals, Sailing Directions
Admiralty Maritime Law International Law Collision Regulations Apportionment of Liability Seamanship Look Out Requirements Risk of Collision +5 more

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monford Management Limited

Claimant

Afina Navigation Limited

Defendant

Afina Navigation Limited

Claimant

Monford Management Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Consolidated Actions / Final Judgment on Liability and Apportionment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did risk of collision arise?
  2. 2 Was the situation a head-on or crossing situation under the Collision Regulations?
  3. 3 Did either vessel breach the Collision Regulations?

Ratio Decidendi

A risk of collision arose at 05:39 when the vessels were in sight of each other, on nearly reciprocal courses, and should have been treated as a head-on situation under Rule 14. Both vessels were obliged to turn to starboard. KIVELI failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to recognise the head-on situation, made inappropriate alterations to port, and ultimately turned to port, causing the collision. AFINA I’s turn to starboard was late but correct. KIVELI’s breaches were of much greater causative potency and blameworthiness. Liability is apportioned 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I.

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: 80% to KIVELI, 20% to AFINA I.

Orders

  • KIVELI found 80% liable for the collision.
  • AFINA I found 20% liable for the collision.