Key takeaways
In our view, the travaux support a narrow application
This would support the findings in The Apollo, not The Kiveli.
The Court of Appeal has given permission to appeal
Given point one, we may see a different analysis by the CA.
Until then, there is still room for argument
For claims handlers, the case law still allows differing interpretation of Rule 14.
This article by Hill Dickinson senior associate and master mariner Peter Thornton MBE was first published by Lloyd’s List Intelligence in November 2025 as a special report. In it, the author discusses the court’s interpretation of Rule 14 in The Kiveli case together with the legal and practical implications of the finding and, further, asks whether this was the correct conclusion with reference to the IMO travaux préparatoires to the 1972 Colregs Convention. A link to the article in full can be found at the bottom of the page.
Introduction
On 16 May 2025 the English Admiralty Court handed down its judgment in The Kiveli.
The judgment sets out one of the most detailed analyses of Rule 14, the ‘Head-on situation’ of the Collision Regulations (Colregs) to be found in the authorities and academic texts. It also comes soon after the decision in The Apollo, which touched on the same issues.
Mariners apply Rule 14 day-in, day-out, all over the world, and Rule 14 has been in effect for nearly 50 years (the 1972 version has been in force since 1977). The relatively limited number of collision cases that have reached the English courts arguably demonstrates that a mariner's understanding of Rule 14 serves them well. Mariners are particularly assisted by the fact that under Rule 14(c), in case of doubt it can be assumed that a head-on situation exists and can act accordingly.
However, aside from the obvious general interest in the court's interpretation of the Colregs, it is also notable that Bryan J in The Kiveli reached different conclusions to those of Teare J in The Apollo but, at the same time, expressed the view that his conclusions were not inconsistent with those in The Apollo. Obvious questions, therefore, arise as to how the head-on situation (Rule 14) is to be interpreted legally and practically in light of these two judgments.
The key finding in The Kiveli is that a head-on situation can now factually apply (ie not just when a vessel is in doubt) when a vessel can see two masthead lights (subjectively nearly in line and nearly ahead) but importantly, only one sidelight.
Follow the link to read more "Head-on" or "Crossing": do the travaux to the 1972 Colregs cast a different light?
