Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd

Held, (1) that rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations was the over-arching definitional rule as to when rule 14 applied; that it contained no express provision that it was (i) qualified in any way, (ii) subject to rule 14(b), or (iii) circumscribed to the specific circumstances set out in rule 14(b); that rule 14(b) was a deeming provision, deeming particular situations as being within the universe of rule 14(a), rather than a definitional provision exclusively defining what was within the universe of rule 14(a); that a general definition of when rule 14 applied rather than one that was circumscribed to the specific circumstances set out in rule 14(b) was more consistent with the object and purpose of the Collision Regulations of promoting safe navigation, in particular preventing collisions at sea; and that, accordingly, rule 14(b) did not set or define what was a “reciprocal or near reciprocal course” within rule 14(a) (post, paras 132–135, 138, 139, 141, 146, 185, 236).

(2) That the deeming provision in rule 14(b) of the Collision Regulations applied (i) if a vessel could see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in line but not the other vessel’s side lights, (ii) if a vessel could see both side lights of the other vessel, and (iii) if a vessel could see the masthead lights and the side-lights of the other vessel; that that interpretation gave meaning and effect to the express language of rule 14(b) and its “and/or wording”, the purpose of the Collision Regulations to promote safe navigation and specifically the prevention of collisions at sea, and the requirement in rule 14(c) to assume a head-on situation exists if there was any doubt; and that, accordingly, a rule 14(a) situation was deemed to exist under rule 14(b) even if a vessel did not see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in line and both side lights (post, paras 161, 163–164, 177, 185, 231, 232, 236).

Dicta of Sir Nigel Teare in FMG Hong Kong Shipping Ltd, demise charterers of FMG Sydney v Owners of the MSC Apollo [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322, paras 101–106 considered.

(3) That in the light of the language of rule 14(b) of the Collision Regulations set in the context of rule 14 as whole, the test in that sub-rule had to be satisfied by reference to what a vessel could see of the other rather than by what both vessels could see of the other (post, paras 179, 184).

Dicta of Sir Nigel Teare in FMG Hong Kong Shipping Ltd, demise charterers of FMG Sydney v Owners of the MSC Apollo [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322, para 101 not applied.

(4) That the vessels were meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses and, therefore, rule 14(a) of the Collision Regulations applied; that in any event, each vessel would have been able to see the other ahead or nearly ahead and each would see the masthead lights in line or nearly in line, therefore, rule 14(b) applied; that that being so, the vessels were in an head-on situation within rule 14 and each vessel should have acted accordingly by altering her course to starboard; that although the A1 should have turned to starboard earlier, it was the failure of K’s chief officer to keep a proper lookout coupled with the K’s disastrous alteration of course to port that was the immediate cause of her collision with A1; and that in the circumstances responsibility for the collision rested 80% with the K and 20% with the A1 (post, paras 231–233, 237–238, 270, 278, 283–286, 297, 327, 331).