Collisions – do Admiralty Court decisions assist mariners?

Common law is constantly evolving and new decisions handed down by common law courts invariably bring greater clarity for lawyers. In the case of collision liability, judgments, particularly from the superior courts can assist lawyers in better advising their clients and often, in negotiating amicable settlement. But are these decisions of any benefit to the mariners navigating vessels?

The recent English Admiralty Court’s decision in Monford Management Ltd -v- Afina Navigation Ltd [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admiralty) addressed liability in the collision between KIVELI and AFINA I (the Kiveli Judgment). The lengthy judgment included a highly detailed analysis of Rule 14 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (Colregs).

Notably, in his judgment, Bryan J emphasised the importance of the decision to mariners, stating that he was keen to ensure that the consequences would be easily understood by seafarers, of all nationalities, of all types, in a wide range of vessels and in worldwide waters. Whilst this is indeed a noble objective, the decision in both the Kiveli Judgment and other recent leading Admiralty court judgments addressed further below (and questions of consistency between them) invite the question as to the extent to which Bryan J’s desired outcome can be achieved, through the medium of the English courts.

The key issue in the aforementioned case was whether, when the vessels collided, they were in a head-on situation or a crossing situation. Different rules apply depending on the situation.

When power-driven vessels meet on reciprocal or near-reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision, if one were to turn to starboard and the other to port, the risk that they will collide will likely increase.

Rule 14 of the Colregs governs the conduct of vessels meeting in ‘head-on’ situations and requires (inter alia) that “When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.”

Rule 15 of the Colregs provides that “When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.”

The combined obligations of vessels under Rules 14 and 15 vary considerably, particularly because under Rule 14, both vessels are required to take action to avoid collision, whereas under Rule 15, one vessel is designated as a ‘stand-on’ vessel, required to maintain its’ course and speed. It is, therefore, imperative that mariners encountering vessels in scenarios where either rule may apply properly assess the situation in front of them and correctly determine which rule applies.

Relevance to mariners

An English Admiralty Court judgment on a collision case is noteworthy and to be accorded due weight, particularly in common law jurisdictions. However, while the Kiveli judgment aimed to bring clarity to seafarers, in practice the tangible impact may be limited.

Specifically:

• Collisions can happen anywhere, and liability apportioned in any one of a number of jurisdictions. The English Court’s interpretation of the Colregs may not be shared by other non-common law jurisdictions. A seafarer cannot, therefore, assume a court in another jurisdiction (particularly in a codified or non-common law jurisdiction) will follow the decision of an English court.

• Even in common law jurisdictions, there is potential for conflict, particularly in the lower courts. The Kiveli Judgment, for example, can be contrasted with the decision of Sir Nigel Teare in The Apollo [2023] 1 Lloyd’s Rep, which also looked at the interplay between Rules 14 and 15.

• The Colregs are not amended on the basis of English court judgments and there is no requirement to educate navigating seafarers based on the outcome of such cases.

It is important, also, to bear in mind that mariners are not lawyers. They are not trained in the same way as lawyers and do not, therefore, think like lawyers. The Colregs were drafted in plain English and are both concise and ambiguous at the same time. For example, Rue 14 prescribes action to be taken by vessels meeting in a head-on situation, but the description of what constitutes a head-on situation is notable in its ambiguity.

In the Kiveli Judgment, Bryan J intended to provide clarity on the circumstances under which a head-on situation is deemed to exist, concluding the following:

• Rule 14(a) provides the scope of application to Rule 14. Rule 14(b) is not a necessary element and is only to assist a vessel in deciding whether or not Rule 14 applies.

• A head-on situation exists where a vessel can see masthead lights in a line or both sidelights of the other, it does not require that both vessels can see both sidelights of the other vessel.

• The deeming wording in 14(b) only need be satisfied by one vessel, not both, not least as a vessel can only even know as a fact what it sees of the other vessel – it cannot know (without doubt) what the other vessel sees of it.

Whilst narrow definitions such as the above may be useful to lawyers, they arguably detract from the liberty provided to mariners to interpret the applicability of rules in any given scenario, such as in Rules 13 and 14, which direct mariners to assume the relevant situation exists, even if they are in doubt that it does. In particular, the Court is mostly concerned with the situation when risk of collision is deemed to exist, which is a highly subjective concept and routinely a point of dispute in collision liability trials and hearings.

Other noteworthy decisions

Notwithstanding the above, there are a number of other English court judgments that are worth noting for the conclusions drawn on how the Colregs should be interpreted.

For example:

Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited -v- Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6 (the Ever Smart): The Supreme Court considered the application of Rule 15 and the interaction between vessels in the vicinity of a narrow channel.

The Global Mariner [2005] EWHC 980. Gross J held that a vessel at anchor had an obligation to control her yawing.

The Koscierzyna [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 124. Sir Thomas Bingham MR held that, under certain circumstances, a vessel being overtaken may be required to take action before the obligation to do so under Rule 17(b) arises.

There are additionally a number of cases that demonstrate the Admiralty Court’s disdain for “VHF assisted collisions”, which continues to be a problem in many reported collisions.

The judgment in the Ever Smart is particularly noteworthy, not only because it is a Supreme Court decision, but because it addresses (and, for legal practitioners reconciled) a conflict where two Colregs apply at the same time. The case arose out of a collision that occurred just outside a narrow channel and examined the conflict between the requirements of Rule 9 (narrow channels) and Rule 15 (crossing situation), but other conflicts frequently arise, in particular in the interplay between Rule 2 and the various rules pertaining to the conduct of vessels in sight of one another.

Comment

Despite the significant advances in electronic aids to navigation, including the use of augmented reality on some vessels, collisions which should be eminently preventable, continue to occur.

We would pose the question whether it is now time to expand the teaching of Colregs to include the guidance found in relevant common law decisions in order to assist mariners in avoiding collisions. Using the examples above, there is undoubtably useful guidance for mariners to be found in relevant judgments, particularly those handed down by the superior courts.

But court judgments, whilst binding on subsequent matters with similar facts that come before the courts, can otherwise provide no more than a guide to mariners practicing collision avoidance. It is incumbent on the maritime industry to provide mariners bearing responsibility for the safe navigation of ships with all reasonable tools to allow them to effect safe navigational practices. Industry guidance on how the Court have interpreted the Colregs might arguably improve decision-making by mariners and potentially lead to a reduction in the occurrence of collisions.

This would, however, raise a number of complex issues, including:

• which courts/jurisdictions the industry should take into account in providing such guidance;

• how to deal with conflicts of law or conflicts between judgments from the same jurisdiction; and

• how to ensure mariners are kept apprised of developments in the law in circumstances where there are no CPD requirements for the profession.

If the further education of mariners in the nuances of various legal decisions is not to be introduced, the question must be asked, is it fair to judge mariners on the standards of the Court, Counsel and the Nautical Assessors?

This article was first published by Marine Risk International in November 2025.