Wilforce LLC v Ratu Shipping Company SA
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Nigel Teare |
| Judgment Date | 20 May 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1190 (Admlty) |
| Docket Number | Case No: AD-2020-000165 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty) |
[2022] EWHC 1190 (Admlty)
Sir Nigel Teare sitting as a Judge of the High Court with Rear Admiral David Snelson and Captain Stephen Gobbi, Elder Brethren of Trinity House, sitting as Nautical Assessors
Case No: AD-2020-000165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMIRALTY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Nigel Jacobs QC and Andrew Carruth (instructed by Stann Law Limited) for the Claimant
Vasanti Selvaratnam QC (instructed by HFW) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 29–31 March 2022 (and written submissions on the advice of the Assessors received between 6 and 13 May 2022)
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Sir Nigel Teare SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
This judgment was handed down by the judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be Friday 20 May 2022 at 10:30 am.
On 31 May 2019 a collision occurred in a “Precautionary Area” of the Singapore Straits Traffic Separation Scheme between the WILFORCE, a double hulled LNG carrier in ballast, and the WESTERN MOSCOW, a bulk carrier on her maiden laden voyage. The combined claims for the damage caused by the collision are said to be in the region of £14 million.
WILFORCE was 290m. in length, 44m. in beam, of 102,315 grt, 30,696 nrt and 87,750 dwt, had been built in Korea in 2013 and was registered in Oslo, Norway. She was powered by 4 diesel electric Wartsila engines which drive a fixed pitch 5 blade right hand propeller and were capable of producing a sea speed of over 20 knots. She was equipped with all navigational devices including ARPA, ECDIS and AIS. At the time of the collision she was leaving Singapore, where she had been undergoing repairs, en route for Indonesia and was drawing about 9.5m. fore and aft. She had dropped her pilot at 2312 on 30 May 2019.
WESTERN MOSCOW was 179.90m. in length, 30m. in beam, of 25,189 grt, 12,869 nrt and 35,350 dwt, had been built in China in 2019 and was registered in the Philippines. She was powered by a single Qingdao Haixi Marine Diesel Turbo main engine which drove a single 4 blade fixed pitch right had propeller and was capable of producing a sea speed of 13.4 knots. She was equipped with all navigational aids including ARPA, ECDIS and AIS. At the time of the collision she was leaving Singapore, where she had been bunkering, en route for Sri Lanka and the Netherlands and was drawing 8.72m. forward and 10.18m aft. She had dropped her pilot at about 0136 on 31 May 2019.
Both vessels had Voyage Data Recorders and information from the VDRs was sensibly exchanged in September 2020 before the commencement of proceedings. The parties have agreed a reconstruction of the vessels' navigation leading to collision from which a schedule of courses, speeds and other navigational data has been created. There were also agreed transcripts of the conversations and VHF messages heard on the bridges of both vessels. In the light of the agreed reconstruction, the resulting schedule and the agreed audio transcription it was not necessary for oral evidence from those on the bridge of each vessel to be given, though written statements were in evidence. In addition to the electronic data recording the vessels' navigation there was CCTV footage of the collision from the bow of WILFORCE. This (black and white) footage was of some assistance in assessing the extent to which the navigational lights of WESTERN MOSCOW had been obscured by additional lights exhibited by that vessel.
Navigation in the Singapore Straits is subject, not only to the Collision Regulations, but also to local rules. By Notice no.20 of 2006 the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore reminded vessels to observe the “Rules for Vessels Navigating Through The Straits of Malacca and Singapore”.
General Provision 4 of those rules provided that “Vessels shall take into account the precautionary areas where crossing traffic may be encountered and be in a maximum state of manoeuvring readiness in these areas.”
Rule 8 provided that “All vessels navigating in the routeing system of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore shall maintain at all times a safe speed consistent with safe navigation, shall proceed with caution, and shall be in a maximum state of manoeuvring readiness.”
Rule 9 provided that “Vessels which are fitted with VHF radio communication are to participate in the ship reporting system adopted by the Organization.” In the Singapore Straits there was a Vessel Traffic Information Scheme (“VTIS”) pursuant to which vessels provided information to the VTIS and the VTIS provided information to vessels.
WILFORCE was leaving Singapore by proceeding eastwards in the traffic separation scheme. In doing so she would of necessity transit a Precautionary Area which is an area where vessels might be found crossing from north to south or south to north. WESTERN MOSCOW was leaving Singapore intending to proceed westwards in the traffic separation scheme. She was planning to enter the westbound lane at the western end of the Precautionary Area. However, she decided to enter the Precautionary Area at its eastern end and to proceed south across the Precautionary Area in order to keep clear of a tug and tow, PROFIT VENTURE, which was proceeding southwards across the Precautionary Area.
With that very brief introduction as to how the vessels found themselves in the Precautionary Area it is necessary to explain the characteristics of a Precautionary Area, this being the first occasion on which the Admiralty Court has had to consider responsibility for a collision in a Precautionary Area.
The IMO Resolution of 1985 on Ships' Routing defined a Precautionary Area as an “area within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be recommended.” A Precautionary Area may be placed at a “junction with crossing traffic. The traffic lanes are terminated short of the point where traffic is expected to cross and replaced by a precautionary area within which the recommended directions of traffic flow are indicated.” The symbols for the recommended direction of traffic flow within the Precautionary Area are dashed outline arrows. “Arrows printed on charts in connection with routeing systems merely indicate the general direction of established or recommended traffic flow: ships need not set their course strictly along the arrows.”
It appears from the Pilot Book for 2006 which was in evidence that Precautionary Areas were introduced into the traffic separation scheme in the Singapore Straits prior to 2006. However, as the following paragraphs of this judgment make clear, the position was put on a firm footing in 2012 and 2013.
In SN.1/Circ.317 dated 4 December 2012 the IMO adopted a number of routing measures, one of which was for “vessels crossing the traffic separation scheme and precautionary areas in the Singapore Strait during hours of darkness.” The “recommendatory measure” for vessels crossing the traffic separation scheme and precautionary areas in the Singapore Strait included the following. At night vessels were to display three all-round green lights in a vertical line when crossing the precautionary area. This was to be done “in ample time” so that other vessels could note the intention to cross the precautionary area. “When traffic conditions are favourable [vessels should] make a large alteration of course, if necessary, so as to be readily apparent to other vessels in the vicinity observing visually or by radar and cross the traffic lane on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.” (Strictly speaking, the traffic lane ends where the Precautionary Area begins. But this measure was issued with regard to vessels which intended to cross the traffic lanes or precautionary areas.)
In 2013 the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore issued Port Marine Circular No.4 which promulgated the measures to be taken by vessels crossing the Traffic Separation Scheme and Precautionary Areas in the Straits of Singapore. Vessels intending to cross the TSS and precautionary areas were recommended to comply with the procedures in Annex 1 which repeated the recommendatory measures from the 2012 IMO document.
Admiralty Chart no. 4041 shows the Precautionary Area with which the present case is concerned south east of Sentosa in the Singapore Strait. It is marked by a triangle with an exclamation mark inside, as recommended by the IMO. The recommended symbols for indicating the traffic flow indicate that when crossing north to south vessels are to use the western part of the Area and when crossing south to north vessels are to use the eastern part of the Area. The symbols also show that vessels are to navigate in an anti-clockwise direction. The dashed outline arrow indicating the general direction of recommended traffic flow for vessels proceeding from south to north indicates 336 degrees (that is, at about right angles to the traffic going eastwards).
Both vessels were using electronic charts. The electronic charts did not use the recommended symbols to show the direction of traffic flow within the Precautionary Area. Instead, a broken circle with an arrow indicating an anti-clockwise direction was used. However, the Assessors have advised that by clicking on that symbol the symbols used on the Admiralty chart...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
"WILFORCE" Collision With "WESTERN MOSCOW": The Application Of The Crossing Rules Re-Considered (Again)
...in the re-apportionment trial in Nautical Challenge Ltd. v. Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd. (No.2) [2022] EWHC 206 and now in The "Wilforce" [2022] EWHC 1190. On 31 May 2019 a collision occurred in a busy Precautionary Area of the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation Scheme between the LNG WILFOR......