Outside the entrance to Jebel Ali, one ship was leaving a narrow channel while another waited to take on a pilot. A collision raised a practical question: should the ships follow the rules for crossing paths or those for navigating a narrow channel?
On 11 February 2015 the outbound container ship Ever Smart collided with the inbound tanker Alexandra 1. The tanker was moving slowly in the pilot boarding area and had yet to begin her final approach. For 23 minutes the vessels approached each other on a compass bearing that did not appreciably change.
Teare J held that the crossing rules in rules 15 to 17 were not engaged. He considered that they could not operate at the same time as rule 9(a), which requires a vessel proceeding along a narrow channel to keep as near as is safe and practicable to the starboard outer limit. He also held that ALEXANDRA 1 was not on a sufficiently defined course, her heading and course over the ground having varied while she waited at about one to two knots. He found EVER SMART seriously at fault for being on the port side of the channel, for a defective lookout and for excessive speed, and ALEXANDRA 1 at fault to a substantial degree for a poor aural lookout which led her master to misunderstand a VHF conversation and not to turn towards the channel. Liability was apportioned 80 per cent to EVER SMART and 20 per cent to ALEXANDRA 1. The Court of Appeal agreed.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
The issues
Two questions of construction were agreed. The first was whether the crossing rules are inapplicable, or are to be disapplied, where an outbound vessel is navigating within a narrow channel and has on a crossing course a vessel approaching the channel with the intention of and in preparation for entering it. The second was whether the putative give-way vessel must be on a steady course before the crossing rules can be engaged. The putative give-way vessel is the vessel which, if the rules apply, has the other on her starboard side and must keep out of the way.
Lord Briggs and Lord Hamblen, with whom the other Justices agreed, stressed that the Regulations must be read so as to give all mariners clear and practical rules, and that the crossing rules ought wherever possible to be applied and strictly enforced.
A steady course is not required
The court answered the second question in the negative. Rule 15 is engaged when two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision. Under rule 7(d)(i) that risk is deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change. Here the vessels were approaching on such a bearing, they were not head-on, and neither was overtaking the other. They were therefore crossing so as to involve risk of collision. ALEXANDRA 1 was moving over the ground in a broadly east-south-easterly direction, even though her heading and course varied and her speed was very low. No further requirement of a steady course is to be implied. Changes in course and speed may cancel one another out, so that an erratic course can still produce a steady bearing. The bearing, unlike the precise steadiness of a course, is readily observed by compass or radar. An implied steady-course condition would leave vessels at risk of collision without a rule identifying which must keep clear. The court also held that the stand-on vessel need not already have been on a steady course. Once the rules apply she must keep her course and speed, but that means maintaining the course on which she happens to be engaged, not that the course must already have been steady.
The narrow channel rules and vessels waiting to enter
On the first question the court held that the crossing rules are not overridden merely because the approaching vessel intends and is preparing to enter the channel. Where vessels are proceeding in opposite directions along a narrow channel, the narrow channel rules apply exclusively. They may also displace the crossing rules when a vessel is on her final approach and is already shaping her course so as to reach the entrance on the starboard side and proceed along the channel in compliance with rule 9(a). In that situation her navigation is already governed by the narrow channel rule, and the crossing rules must give way.
A vessel which is still waiting, rather than shaping that final approach, is in a different position. ALEXANDRA 1 was waiting in the pilot boarding area. There was no necessity to disapply the crossing rules. As give-way vessel she could have kept clear by stopping or altering course. The outbound vessel, if the stand-on vessel, could have kept her course and speed, an obligation flexible enough to include compliance with rule 9. Whether a vessel is shaping to enter can be judged from her observed course and speed. Mere intention, preparation, or presence in a pilot boarding area cannot reliably be observed and distinguished from other reasons for being near the entrance. The authorities on which the courts below relied concerned vessels that were already shaping to enter, not vessels that were waiting.
In these circumstances Alexandra 1 had Ever Smart on her starboard side and was required to keep clear.
Verdict: The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The crossing rules applied. The Court did not alter the percentages of blame itself. Any necessary reconsideration of apportionment was left to the Admiralty Court.
Source: Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6
