Selat Arjuna (Owners) v Contship Success (Owners) [QBD (Admiralty)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Geoffrey Brice |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 1998 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
| Date | 22 July 1998 |
Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court).
Geoffrey Brice QC (sitting as a deputy High Court judge).
Belinda Bucknall QC and Nigel Jacobs (instructed by Penningtons) for the plaintiffs.
Jeremy Russell QC and Simon Kverndal (instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan) for the defendants.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Alcoa Rambler, TheELR [1949] AC 236
Century Dawn, TheUNK [1996] 1 Ll Rep 125
Da Ye, TheUNK [1993] 1 Ll Rep 30
Lok Vivek, TheUNK [1995] 2 Ll Rep 230
Shipping — Collision — Whether when ships were shaping to pass starboard to starboard alteration of course to starboard made other ship the give way ship — International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, reg. 15-17.
This was an action in rem brought by the owners, master and crew of MV Selat Arjuna for damages arising out of a collision between the Selat Arjuna and MV Contship Success in July 1993 in the Arabian Sea off Yemen as a result of which both ships sustained damage and the Selat Arjuna sank (fortunately without serious physical injury). The owners of the Contship Success counterclaimed.
The Contship Success, a container ship, collided with the Selat Arjuna, a much smaller and slower tug-supply vessel, and sank her. The case for the Selat Arjuna was that the ships were shaping to pass starboard to starboard in the open sea but that the Contship Success performed an unexpected and unaccountable alteration of course to starboard when passing and collided with the starboard side of the Selat Arjuna sinking her. The defendant owners of the Contship Success claimed that the Selat Arjuna when first seen by the Contship Success was some 15 degrees on her port bow on a crossing course, with the Selat Arjuna the give way vessel and the Contship Success the stand on vessel. The Selat Arjuna failed to give way and the Contship Success altered course to starboard to avoid a collision. The defendants' alternative case was that even if the two ships were originally shaping to pass starboard to starboard, once the Contship Success altered course to starboard the crossing rules applied under reg. 15–17 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 making the Selat Arjuna the give way ship.
Held giving judgment in favour of the Selat Arjuna and dismissing the counterclaim:
1. On the evidence the Contship Success altered course to starboard and collided with the Selat Arjuna which was at all material times on her starboard bow. The evidence of the third officer of the Contship Success and officer of the watch that he first saw the Selat Arjuna on his port bow was wrong. By altering course to starboard he placed the Selat Arjuna ahead and as he proceeded to alter more and more to starboard by steps of just under ten degrees at a time, he kept the Selat Arjuna about ahead. Those on board the Selat Arjuna would not be aware of such a slow starboard alteration and having assumed a safe starboard to starboard passing were taken by surprise.
2. Even if the Contship Success was at fault in altering course to starboard the crossing rules under the Collision Regulations might still apply in principle. However the nautical assessors advised and the court accepted that the manner of alteration by gentle ten-degree step alterations (followed by a hard to starboard alteration prior to the collision) was not an alteration whose intent would have been clear to a competent officer maintaining an efficient look out on the Selat Arjuna. Accordingly the vessel said to be the stand on vessel, the Contship Success, was never on a course so as to make the Selat Arjuna the give way vessel (The Alcoa RamblerELR[1949] AC 236 applied).
3. The Contship Success wrongly altered course to starboard to a ship on her starboard bow and if an alteration to starboard was to be made, failed to make a bold alteration in due time or at all and which could be observed from on board the Selat Arjuna. The Contship Success also failed among other things to reduce speed in due time to avoid a collision and to reduce to manoeuvring full ahead in due time or at all. The Selat Arjuna was not at fault. The situation which presented itself to her was of a safe starboard to starboard passing which only became unsafe because of the wholly unexpected actions of the Contship Success which were not reasonably detectable by the Selat Arjuna until it was too late. The defendant owners of the Contship Success were solely to blame for the collision and damage including the sinking and loss of the Selat Arjuna and all property on board her.
Geoffrey Brice QC:
This was an action in rem (1994 Folio No. 900) brought by the owners, master and crew of the motor vessel Selat Arjuna for damages arising out of a collision between the Selat Arjuna and the motor vessel Contship Success shortly after midnight (GMT;pl four hours) on 27 July 1993 in the Arabian Sea off Yemen (it being dark but with good visibility: see below) as a result of which both ships sustained damage and the Selat Arjuna sank (fortunately without serious physical injury). The owners of the Contship Success counterclaim. Where I have sought and been given the advice of the nautical assessors (as set out below) I have accepted it.
The Selat Arjuna was a United Arab Emirates registered anchor handling tug-supply vessel (built in 1973) of conventional design (with her bridge and accommodation right forward) of 497.78 tons gross, 149 tons net register, 56.4 metres in length overall, 11.6 metres in beam with a maximum draft of 4.1 metres. She was twin screw (controllable pitch) and was powered by two diesel engines producing 5,750 brake horse power giving a service speed of about nine to ten knots. She was fitted with a 350 horsepower bow thruster. She was very manoeuvrable. Her navigational equipment included a Decca autopilot, a gyro compass and autopilot, one Decca and one Furuno radar set (but which bands they operated on was not known). The latter was permanently switched on (usually on the 12- or 24-mile ranges) and in ship's “head up” mode. She was also fitted with a GPS system although some of the oral evidence suggested (apparently erroneously) a satellite navigational system (SATNAV). The engines were bridge controlled and she had an unmanned engine room.
At the material time she was in the course of a voyage from Sharjah to the SBM at Rudom (off Mukalla, Yemen) laden with charterers' equipment on a draft of somewhere between 10 feet and 10.5 feet (even keel) and manned by a crew of ten all told (including her master Captain F R Inguin). The chief officer maintained the 12–6 watch and the captain the 6–12 watch. The AB lookouts worked three four-hour shifts. From this it will be seen that the watches were due to change a few minutes before collision, something which is considered below.
The Contship Success is a Hamburg registered motor container ship (built in 1986) of 16,250 tonnes gross with a carrying capacity of 1,597 TEUs plus 26 FEUs. She is thus a very much larger ship (and much faster) than was the Selat Arjuna. Her accommodation and engine room are situated aft. She is 163.40 metres in length overall and 27.50 metres in beam. She is fitted with a global positioning system (GPS). Her other navigational equipment included two radar sets: see below.
She is powered by a diesel engine developing 13,460 brake horsepower geared to a single (right handed) propeller and producing a full sea speed of 17 knots (at 105 rpm). She is highly manoeuvrable as her turning circle data demonstrates. In sea trial conditions, at full ahead (17 knots) and laden, with maximum starboard rudder, she can turn 90° in one minute 36 seconds (with an advance of 0.36 miles); and 180° in two minutes 48 seconds (with a transfer of 0.35 miles).
She was in the course of a laden voyage from European ports to ports on the Indian subcontinent via Dubai. Her drafts at collision were 10.3m forward and 11.05m aft. She was manned by a crew of 19 all toward (including her master Captain E Schröder). Her containers were loaded with five tiers on deck but not such as to obstruct vision forward from the wheelhouse. The third officer, Mr Arnold, and an AB, Mr Tadlip (who himself held a third officer's certificate and radar certificates) maintained the 2000–2400 watch: the ship was maintaining a time of GMT;pl three hours 20 minutes, i.e. she was 40 minutes behind the Selat Arjuna. Her working chart was German chart No. 325: positions marked on it from 2000–2303 on 26 July were marked by the third officer and that for 2325 by Captain Schröder.
Neither ship was equipped with a course recorder and there is no legal requirement to have one. Both ships were equipped with curtained off chart rooms with a chart table. Both ships had at least one chair in the wheelhouse. In the case of the Contship Success this had particular significance because the officer of the watch could sit comfortably in the chair operating the controls of her computerised control systems both in normal navigational use and in an emergency. He could also watch the ARPA radar at the same time albeit his view forward was somewhat restricted by the level of the top of the ARPA radar, this of course depending on the height of the officer of the watch and precisely how he was sitting.
The pleaded cases as to the situation which presented itself when the vessels first observed each other by radar and later visually are diametrically opposed. In summary the case of the plaintiffs (Selat Arjuna) is that the vessels were shaping for a starboard to starboard passing, that when the passing was actually taking place the Contship Success performed a major and wholly unexpected alteration of course to starboard and collided with the starboard side of the Selat Arjuna sinking her. The case of the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd (THE 'ALEXANDRA 1' and 'EVER SMART')
...532. Queen Mary, The (1949) 82 Ll L Rep 303. Roanoke, The [1908] P 231. Savina, The [1976] 2 Ll Rep 123. Selat Arjuna v Contship Success [1998] CLC 1495. Sestriere, The [1976] 1 Ll Rep 125. Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo, Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328. Taunton, The (1928) 31 Ll L Rep 119. Treherber......
-
Public Prosecutor v Ng Keng Yong and Another
...only give rise to uncertainty and confusion. 248. The defense cited two cases in support of their argument. In The Contship Success [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 488, two vessels were shaping to safely pass each other starboard to starboard with a CPA of 1nm and no risk of collision when one of the......
-
OWNERS of THE SELAT ARJUNA v OWNERS of THE CONTSHIP SUCCESS, Trans. Ref: QBADF 98/1275 CMS3
...compass. In these circumstances it is possible to deal with the matter quite shortly. The judgment of the judge is reported at [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 488, to which reference can readily be made, so that it is not necessary to recite the issues before the judge or indeed the facts in great de......
-
Owners of the ship 'Selat Arjuna' v Owners of the ship 'Contship Success'
...to starboard. This was an appeal by the owners of a container ship, Contship Success, from a decision of the deputy Admiralty Judge ([1998 CLC 1495) that the Contship Success was solely to blame for a collision in which the Contship Success sank the tug, Selat The Selat Arjuna and Contship ......