Jan Laurenz, The (Dimitris X, Ian Laurenz, Pass of Glendunie, Saint William)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ROSKILL,Sir GORDON WILLMER |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J1215-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 15 December 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J1215-6
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal of the plaintiffs from judgment of Mr. Justice Brandon on 3rd Februar 1972
The Master of the rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Roskill
and
Sir Gordon Willmer
Captain F.W. White, O.B.E., Nautical Assessor
Mr. IAN WARD and Mr. MICHAEL HOWARD (instructed by Messrs. Alsop, Stevens, Batesons & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiffs.
Mr. MICHAEL THOMAS and Mr. S. GAULT (instructed by Messrs. Inca & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Defendants.
On 22nd March, 1968, there was a collision between two vessels In the Manchester Ship Canal It was about 17-25 p.m. in daylight when the weather was fine and clear. The Saint William was 781 tons gross and 20 feet long. The Jan Laurent: was 219 tons gross and 173 feet long. In outline the collision happened in this way: A big ship - the Dimities X - was going eastwards up the canal and through the Partington Coal Basin. The Saint William was at No. 4 berth. She cast off and moved westwards down the canal towards Catishead Viaduct. As she did so the Jan Lauren also going westwards came up from behind passed the Dimitris X and sought to overtake the Saint William. The Jan Laurens wished to get through the viaduct bridge before the Saint William. She did not succeed in doing so. She overtook the Saint William in the narrows of the bridge but it was so narrow that both vessels could not get through together. Hence the collision.
1. WAS THE SAINT WILLIAM INITIALLY AT FAULT?
The first question in this case is whether the Saint William was at fault in moving from her berth into the fairway of the canal? Did she thereby give rise to danger to the Jan Laurenz?
Upon this question we asked our Assessor these questions to which he gave his answers. He prefaced them with the statement that-
"These answers are given on the basic premise that the Master of 'Saint William' and the Pilot of 'Jan Laurenz' are experienced Canal ship-handlers; that close quarter operation of shipping is commonplace in the area; and both ships are relatively small reasonably quick-acting responsive and maneuverable."
QUESTION 1 was this: "On Judge's findings of fact and In all the circumstances was it proper for the Saint William to start casting off her moorings when the Jan Laurenz was seen approaching at a distance of about 1200 feet and about to pass the Dimitris X?"
Our Assessor Answer to Question 1 was this Yes The unmooring of Saint William would be rapid and carried out simultaneously with commencing to cant vessel's bow out."
QUESTION 2 was this:
"If sot was it proper for the Saint William to cast off her back spring (her last remaining mooring) at a time when the Jan Laurenz had disappeared behind the Dimitris X?"
Our Assessor's Answer to Question 2 was this:
"Yes The Hester of Saint William was well aware of the approach of Jan Laurenz."
QUESTION 3 was this:
"Would your answer be the same if the distance between the Saint William and the Jan Laurenz at that time was about 700 feet?"
Our Assessor's Answer to Question 3 was this: "Yes" QUESTION if was this:
"What, in your opinion would be the shortest distance at which it would be reasonably safe to cast off the back spring?"
Our Assessor's Answer to Question If was this:
600 to 700 feet. This distance naturally depends upon the speed of advance of Jan Laurenz which is not given in the Judge's findings of fact. At 2 knots the shortest safe distance would, in my estimate be 600 feet; at 3 knots 700 feet. These distances are given without taking General Bye-Law 17 into account.
General Bye-Law No. 17 says that: "when one vessel is following another without intention of passing she shall not approach nearer to the leading vessel than a furlong or one-eighth of a mile." That is 660 feet.
If those answers are accepted, it means that the Saint William was not at fault in casting off her moorings when she did.
2. WAS THE JAN LAUBENZ SECONDARILY AT FAULT?
The second question is whether the Jan Laurenz was at fault when she first saw the Saint William in increasing speed and making to pass the Saint William? We asked our Assessor this question;
Do you agree with the answers to the five questions put to the Assessor by the Judge with regard to the Jan Laurenz?" These fire questions and Answers were:-
1. Q. "Was the pilot of the Jan Laurenz justified when he first saw the Saint William just after leaving her berth, angled about 2 to 3 points to starboard of a down canal course, in assuming that she would bold back and allow him tc pass?"
A. The pilot was justified in thinking it likely that the Saint William would hold back, but he should not have excluded the possibility of her not doing so."
Our Assessor did not agree wholly with this answer. He said: "My agreement is limited to a minor degree in that the Pilot was not completely justified in his assumption at this stage The Elder Brother's answer was qualified to some extent by his use of the words 'in thinking it likely'. The pilot should have navigated with caution at this point in that, after first stopping John Laurenz's engines momentarily, there was no need to go full ahead as he approached No. 3 berth."
2. Q. "If not (I.e. if the pilot of Jan Laurenz was not justified in assuming that the Saint William would hold back) what action should be have taken?"
A. "He should have gassed down to minimum steerage way say about two knots and sounded one long and one short blast by way of warning." Our Assessor agreed.
3. Q. "After the pint of the Jan Laureaz had sounded one long and one short blast twice and got no reply ought he to hare realised that there was a real danger that the Saint William would not hold back?" "Yes":
Our Assessor agreed
4. Q. If so (i.e. if the pilot ought to have realised that there was a real danger) what action should, he have taken? "As before (i.e. eased down to minimum steerage way, say about two knots, and sounded one long blast and one short blast by way of warning)" Our Assessor agreed.
5. Q. "If the Jan Laurenz had taken the action which you suggest, namely reducing to minimum steerage way and maintaining it thereafter (a) would there have been any risk of her colliding with the Pass of Genclunie or striking the canal bank, or getting into other difficulties?
A. No".
Our Assessor agreed; and
Q. (b) would the Saint William have been able to pass through the bridge safely ahead of her?"
A. "Yes".
Our Assessor agreed.
If those answers are accepted, it means that it was negligent Jan Laurenz to increase speed and to make to pass the Saint in the way she did. She was clearly at fault in not holding back
3. WAS THE SACTT WILLIAM THIRDLY AT FAULT?
The third question is whether the Saint William was at fault when he saw the Jan Lauren coming down the canal and hearing her blasts in not holding back.
Upon this question we asked our Assessor these questions:-
5. Q. (a) "Raving finally cast off the remaining mooring would it thereafter have been practicable for the Saint William to hold back?: and at what stage and up to what point?" Our Assessor answered:
A. "Yes; at any stage prior to entering narrowing of Canal on the South Bank some 700 feet down canal from No 2 berth."
Q (b) "If so as matter to good seamanship ought she to have held back?"
A. "Not necessarily as a matter of course at the outset but thereafter as events unfolded yes provided vessel within area specified as (a)(i.e. provided she had not reached the narrows),"
That answer is inconclusive. It leaves open the question: Where was the Saint William at the material time? 'As I read the evidence she had reached the narrows before the danger was imminent. It was then too late to expect her to hold back. It was for the Jan Laurenz to have held back and not to have proceeded to overtake.
4 THE SPEED OF THE JAN LAURENZ
The critical point is the speed of the Jan Laurenz. The Judge made no finding about it. The evidenoe is overwhelming that as soon as she passed the Dimitris X, she put on speed - much faster than she should have been going especially in the Partington Basin. The rule there was: "Dead Slow" but she increased from2 or 3 knots up to 7 or 8 knots when she reached the viaduct. Mr Hesketh (who was in a good position opposite No 5 berth) said: "She seemed to put; her foot down there at No. 5 berth. Sh6 had a bow wave in front of the ship. It gives you a good idea of the pace." Hr. Sherlock (who was watching from a point between Ho. 1 and No. 3 berth) said of the Jan Laurenz: "When he passed the Dimitris he increased his speed and when he passed me in front of the office he was creating a bow wave a great bow wave.1 The pilot of the Jan Laurenz Mr. Clark said that after a momentary stop he started to increase speecd about No. 3 berth, then he went full ahead and "left her on full ahead". There was one illuminating question and answer It was in his examination-in-chief:
Q. "Perhaps in your own words you would Indicate what happened after you had chosen to increase speed? A. Basically I decided that the best course I could take as I saw It at the time was-to go for the bridge and hope to get past the Saint William before he had got properly under way - which I did - but he was increasing speed as well. By this time I was committed to my course of action. I left her on full ahead and we went to the viaduct bridge more or less together. I actually overtook him before the contact was made, The collision was in the bridge hole itself."
All that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maritime Collisions
...[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 384 (QB); Queen Mary (The) (1949), 82 LI LR 303 (HL); Jan Laurenz (The) , [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 404 (QB), aff’d [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 329 (CA); Iran Torab (The) , [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 38; The Clary , above note 20. Maritime Collisions 831 • Rule 14 provides for right-of-w......