Denver Maritime Limited v Belpareil AS
| Judge | Mr Justice |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 362 (Admlty) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
| Counsel | James M Turner Kc,Lionel Persey Kc |
| Date | 26 February 2024 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 362 (Admlty)
Case No: AD-2022-000047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMIRALTY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC2A 1NL
Date: 26/02/2024
Before :
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
sitting with Commodore William Walworth and Captain Stephen Gobbi,
Elder Brethren of Trinity House, as nautical assessors
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
DENVER MARITIME LIMITEDClaimant
- and -
BELPAREIL ASDefendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
James M Turner KC (instructed by Campbell Johnston Clark Ltd) for the Claimant
Lionel Persey KC (instructed by Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 21-23, 28 November 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This is a reserved judgment to which CPR PD 40E has applied.
Copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
.............................
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
Approved Judgment
Belpareil c/w Kiran Australia
Mr Justice Andrew Baker :
Introduction
1.The m.v.Belpareil and the m.v.Kiran Australia are identically proportioned,
geared Supramax bulk carriers. At about 01:10 hrs on 9 November 2021, they
collided in the Bay of Bengal, off Chattogram, Bangladesh. All times referred
to in this judgment are local time in Bangladesh, which was UTC + 6 hrs; and
in some places, in the conventional way, I give the number of minutes before
the collision in the form ‘C-[no.]’. In the collision there was contact between
KiranAustralia’srudderandpropeller and Belpareil’sportanchor cable,
closely followed by hull to hull contact between Kiran Australia’s starboard
quarter and Belpareil’s port bow.
2.Under the normal case management arrangements in the Admiralty Court, the
Admiralty Registrar made an allocation decision and gave case management
directions. Those directions assigned the case to the Admiralty Judge for a
liability trial, sitting with two Elder Brethren of Trinity House as nautical
assessors, and directed that any assessment of damages is to be referred to the
Admiralty Registrar following determination of liability. I heard the liability
trial over six days, including a reading day before the first sitting day and a
reading day between evidence and closing argument.
3.The Elder Brethren sitting with me as nautical assessors were Commodore
William Walworth and Captain Stephen Gobbi. I followed the usual proper
procedure for obtaining their advice set out byGross J (as he was then) in The
Global Mariner and the Atlantic Crusader [2005] EWHC 380 (Admlty) at
[12]-[17], especially [14]. Specifically:
(i)I ensured that counsel in closing made any submissions they wished to
make as to the questions that might be put to the Elder Brethren, and I
took those submissions into account when settling the questions I put,
which I set out in a written brief submitted to the Elder Brethren on 29
November 2023;
(ii)the Elder Brethren provided their advice in response, in writing, on 15
December 2023, and my Clerk sent a copy to counsel on receipt so
they could take instructions and provide observations on behalf of their
respective clients, if so advised; and
(iii)taking account of counsel’s resulting observations, submitted in writing
on 18 January 2024, I sought clarification from the Elder Brethren on
19 January 2024 of three points in their advice.
4.Before I had received the Elder Brethren’s clarifications,Kiran Australia sent
to my Clerk, for my attention, a written submission in reply toBelpareil’s
observations. That was done without prior notice or accompanying request for
permission to provide further argument. That should not have happened. If the
view was taken that in fairness Kiran Australia ought to be allowed to provide
a further written submission, that procedural point should have been raised
with Belpareil first, and then with the court if agreement was not reached on it.
MR JUSTICE ANDREW BAKER
Approved Judgment
Belpareil c/w Kiran Australia
5. Belpareilobjected to that reply. In response, it was intimated that the reply
itself included an objection, namely thatBelpareil’s observations involved an
attempt to recast the case it had pursued and presented at trial. I did not think it
would be possible to judge that objection fairly without reading the reply, but I
was anxious to avoid as far as possible a proliferation of additional post-trial
submissions. I therefore adopted the following procedure:
(i)On receipt of the Elder Brethren’s supplementary advice on 2 February
2024, in line withThe Global Mariner at [14(v)], I considered whether
to provide it to the parties beforedeciding the case and, therefore,
before completing and circulating any draft judgment, doing so without
reference to Kiran Australia’s initial reply, which I did not read.
(ii)I concluded that it was desirable for the parties to have an opportunity
to comment, in a final round of written submissions, and that in view of
the indicated nature of Kiran Australia’s initial reply, and the room
there may have been for different interpretations of the elements of the
Elder Brethren’s main advice on which I had sought clarification, it
would be appropriate to allow the parties an opportunity to reply to
each other’s observations.
(iii)For a sensibly managed final process, therefore, I directed that:
(a) Kiran Australia could provide, if so advised, a single, concise
written submission, setting out any (i) observations on the Elder
Brethren’s supplementary advice, and (ii) comments in reply to
Belpareil’s observations on their main advice;
(b) Belpareil could provide, if so advised, a single, concise written
submission, setting out any (i) observations on the Elder
Brethren’s supplementary advice or (ii) reply to any submission
under (a) above;
(c) Kiran Australiacould provide, if so advised, a very brief, final
written reply to any submission under (b) above, to complete
the argument in the case; and
(d)in the circumstances, I would not read (and so indeed I never
read)Kiran Australia’s initial reply, since any parts of it that
remained pertinent could be included in a submission provided
under (a) above.
6.Pursuant to those directions, I received: (a) on 5 February 2024, a written
submission on behalf ofKiran Australia; (b) on 9 February 2024, a written
submission on behalf of Belpareil; and (c) on 13 February 2024, a final reply
on behalf of Kiran Australia. Neither party applied for the trial to be re-listed
for additional oral argument.
7.I record my gratitude to counsel, and their instructing solicitors, for all their
assistance, and to the Elder Brethren for their advice, which I have found most
helpful even where, as appears below, I have not accepted it.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting