Owner of the vessel(s) NAVIGATOR ARIES (IMO No. 9403762) v Owner of the vessel(s) LEO PERDANA (IMO No. 9363390)

Facts

Just before midnight on 28 June 2015, the LPG tanker Navigator Aries (NA), outbound and heading north, collided with the larger container ship Leo Perdana (LP), inbound and heading south, in the Surabaya Strait in Indonesia. Both were under compulsory pilotage in a buoyed narrow channel containing a recently dredged stretch 150m wide. Minutes earlier the pilots had agreed over VHF radio to pass port-to-port, and both vessels made a series of small alterations to starboard. The NA had stayed to the west of the recommended track.

At 23:16:40 the LP's pilot ordered the rudder to midships, then steady. From 23:16:46 the LP sheered to port into the NA's path. Her pilot called that her steering was not responding and ordered hard starboard, then stopped the engine and went astern; the NA also went hard to starboard. At 23:17:51 the LP's bow struck the NA's port side and a fire broke out on the NA. The owners sued each other in admiralty actions that were consolidated. The High Court judge found that the sheer was caused by bow cushion effect from the LP's proximity to the edge of the dredged channel, blamed the NA for breaching the narrow channel rule and failing to keep a proper lookout, and apportioned liability 70:30 in the LP's favour. The NA's owner appealed in Civil Appeal No 45 of 2022, which was transferred to the Court of Appeal because it raised a point of law of public importance on the narrow channel rule.

Issues

1. Whether the LP breached the collision regulations by failing to detect the bow cushion effect and by her pilot's midships order.
2. Whether Rule 9(a) of the COLREGS requires a vessel to keep as near to the outer limit of a narrow channel as is safe and practicable, and whether the LP had to go beyond the dredged channel.
3. Whether the LP breached the rules on safe speed and slowing down.
4. How liability for the collision should be apportioned between the two vessels.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and found both vessels equally to blame, replacing the Judge's 70:30 apportionment with 50:50. The parties were to file written submissions on the costs of the appeal, the trial and the transfer application within 14 days.

Reasoning

Applying s 1(1) of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 and the approach in The Dream Star [2018] 4 SLR 473, the court weighed each vessel's culpability and causative potency. It accepted that the immediate cause was the LP's port sheer and its physical cause bow cushion effect. But the data showed the LP was failing to reach ordered headings from about 23:14 despite large rudder angles, so her pilot should have realised she was meeting hydrodynamic resistance. The midships order deliberately removed the starboard helm that was holding her, leading to an uncontrollable sheer; this breached Rules 8(a), 8(c) and 8(d). The court made no finding on Rule 14, as the submissions on it were brief.

On Rule 9(a), the court held that it requires a vessel to keep as near to the outer limit of the channel on her starboard side as is safe and practicable, not merely to stay in her own half. That follows the changed wording from the 1960 rules and better serves safety in narrow channels. However, the LP was not shown to have been able to go safely beyond the dredged channel, so she did not breach Rule 9(a); her track after the collision was taken in an emergency and proved little.

The LP's speed of over 16 knots was excessive and she slowed far too late, breaching Rules 6 and 8(e). The NA was also going too fast, and the Judge's findings that she breached Rules 5, 7 and 9(a) stood. Her Rule 9(a) breach narrowed the LP's sea room. However, the vessels had an agreed passing, the LP knew the NA's position, and the vessels were shaping to pass safely until the sheer; a modest alteration by both could have given about 79m clearance. Distinguishing The Pelopidas and TRSL Concord [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 675, the court found the Judge had placed too much weight on the NA's breach and none on the midships order.

From the judgment