OVERVIEW
Avoiding a Head-On Collision - (it is not just about the side lights). KIVELI c/w AFINA I - Monford Management Limited v Afina Navigation Limited [2025] EWHC 1210 (Admiralty) The Admiralty Court clarifies the test for the operation of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations and also provides guidance as to the responsibilities of a stand-on vessel under Rule 15.
Introduction
The leading commentaries on the Collision Regulations ("ColRegs") point to the danger that, when power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal courses or crossing at a fine angle, they will collide because one vessel turns to starboard and one vessel alters course to port. As the author of Farwell's Rules of the Nautical Road (9th ed) puts it:
"If this obvious course of disaster could be impressed on the consciousness of every watchstander, cases of head-on collisions at sea would become mercifully rare."
The decision of the Admiralty Court (Bryan J.) in Monford Management Limited v Afina Navigation Ltd [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admiralty) now provides detailed guidance on the operation of Rule 14 and its inter-play with Rule 15. That guidance should help avoid similar situations arising in the future, not least because the Judge had well in mind the need to ensure that his construction of Rule 14 was consistent with a requirement that the test for what is a head-on situation within the meaning of Rule 14 should be easily understood by professional seafarers and amateur sailors and should be capable of being applied to all power-driven vessels irrespective of their lighting configuration.
The judgment also clarifies that even if Rule 15 (crossing situations) governs the obligations of both vessels, a stand-on vessel, may still be substantially to blame for the Collision if her actions (or inactions) are a serious breach of the ColRegs and are the effective cause of a collision. The argument that last-minute manoeuvres of a stand-on vessel should be treated as having no causative potency, even if wrong, because a navigating officer is caught on the horns of a dilemma will not succeed where those manoeuvres are simply a further link in a chain of failures by a stand-on vessel.
Facts
At about 06:01 local time on 13 March 2021, while both underway, two bulk carriers, KIVELI and AFINA I collided off the Southwest Greece ("the Collision"). At the time, there was good visibility, good weather and both vessels were in open water. The Collision occurred when KIVELI turned to port as AFINA I was turning to starboard. As a consequence of the Collision, the bow of KIVELI hit the port side of AFINA I's no. 4 cargo hold at an angle of approximately 90º and became embedded putting AFINA I at risk of sinking. After the vessels were towed to Ormos Vatika, a bay located on the Peloponnese, Greece, they spent the next 20 days locked together. Both vessels suffered significant damage.
The vessels were in sight of each other and a risk of collision
arose at C-22 (i.e. 22 minutes before the Collision). At this time
the vessels' headings were 7º off reciprocal, the range
between the vessels was just over 8.6nm with both vessels. Shortly
after this time, KIVELI made two minor alterations of course to
port intended to increase the passing distance to starboard with
AFINA I and another vessel directly ahead of her.
AFINA I's Chief Officer considered the vessels to be in a
head-on situation with the vessels shaping to pass green to green
with a CPA of only 0.26nm commenced turning to starboard at C-5.
Shortly before commencing her turn, AFINA I sought to signal KIVELI
with her Aldis lamp but this was not seen by KIVELI (because the
Chief Officer was not keeping a proper look-out).
KIVELI's Chief Officer accepted that he did see AFINA I turning to starboard but nevertheless took no action prior to turning hard to port at about C-1.20. This was notwithstanding a VHF call from AFINA I to KIVELI to alert her at the time or immediately before KIVELI started her turn.
The Issues
There were two essential issues for the Court in respect of liability:
- Were the vessels (at any material time) on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve a risk of collision, alternatively where there was any doubt as to whether such a situation existed for the purpose of Rule 14 of the ColRegs?
- Were the vessels (at any material time) crossing so as to involve a risk of collision pursuant to Rule 15 of the Collision Regulations?
The Governing Rule
The proper approach to the construction of the ColRegs was common ground between the parties although, as the Judge noted, their construction was not ([83]). Adopting that approach and following a detailed analysis of the language of the Rule, the relevant authorities and other materials (including the fully-reasoned guidance of the nautical assessor), the Judge concluded that Rule 14 was the governing rule from C-22. In reaching this conclusion, he determined that:
- The structure of Rules 14 and 15 is such that Rule 14 takes precedence;
- Rule 14 will apply ([185]):
a. When vessels are meeting on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses so as to involve a risk of collision (Rule 14(a) is the definitional provision);
b. Rule 14(b) is a deeming provision and applies (i) when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and (ii) by night she would see the masthead lights of the other vessel in a line or nearly in a line or both side lights.
c. When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether the two vessels
are meeting on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses so as to
involve a risk of collision pursuant to Rule 14(c).
The Judge rejected a submission on behalf of KIVELI that Rule 14 would only apply if both vessels had been able to see both sidelights of the other vessel at the same relevant point(s) in time. In other words, he rejected the notion that Rule 14(b) is a defining provision for the purposes of Rule 14(a) and also rejected an argument that 'and/or' in Rule 14(b) should not be read disjunctively. The Judge also rejected an argument by KIVELI that Rule 14(c) does not mean that a 'head-on' situation applies but merely compels the vessel in doubt to act accordingly while the other vessel is able to do nothing.
The Judge did not accept that his reasoning was inconsistent with that of Sir Nigel Teare in The Apollo [2023] EWHC 323 (Admiralty) and of the Supreme Court in The Eversmart [2021] UKSC 6. However, to the extent that it could be argued that Sir Nigel Teare in The Apollo reached a different conclusion as to whether Rule 14(b) was a defining provision, which could only be satisfied by what both vessels could see, the Judge respectfully disagreed (see [178] – [183]).
Application of the Rules
The Judge concluded that a risk of collision arose at C-22, because (applying Rule 7(d)(i)) the respective bearings of each vessel were not appreciably changing, but also the CPA was less than a reasonably competent mariner would consider a safe passing distance and because KIVELI and AFINA I were meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses and each could see the other ahead or nearly ahead and each would see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in line.
The Judge went on to conclude that in light of his findings as to the proper interpretation of Rule 14 and on the facts, Rule 14 applied to as from C-22. Accordingly, KIVELI was at fault for not turning to starboard after C-22 and instead initially making small alterations to port and then her final catastrophic turn to port. There were also a serious failure of lookout on the part of KIVELI. AFINA I was at fault because her turn to starboard was late and was not sufficiently substantial (albeit the causative effect of this last point was reduced because the Chief Officer of KIVELI acknowledged that he saw AFINA I turning). The Judge also held that, even if there was a crossing situation with KIVELI as stand-on vessel, she was at fault for failing to turn to starboard (under Rule 17(a)(ii)) and because she should not have made her alterations of course to port or her final turn to port.
The Judge rejected a submission by KIVELI that even if the vessels were in a head-on situation at C-22, they were not at C-6 when the bearing of each vessel from the other was opening such that the vessels were in a crossing situation. The Judge held that once Rule 14 applies when a risk of collision arises, it continues to apply thereafter unless and until the risk of collision has passed and is not affected by subsequent changes of course.
Finally, the Judge rejected an argument that AFINA I was navigating in breach of Admiralty Sailing Directions encompassing local regulations for the navigation of a nearby Strait and held that, in any event, any breach of the sailing directions by AFINA I had no causative effect.
Apportionment
The principles to be applied by the Judge were common ground ([321]). Alongside the guidance found in the authorities, the Judge was also assisted by articles from Sir Henry Brandon and by Sir Nigel Teare, (citations for both are at [323]). In essence, the correct approach is to consider and weigh the faults of each vessel separately and individually and then to arrive at an apportionment of liability that justly reflects the relative degree of fault as between the two vessels.
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that KIVELI was 80% to blame for the Collision and AFINA I was 20% to blame for the Collision. Notably, the Judge concluded that his apportionment would have been the same even if, contrary to his findings and the advice of the nautical assessor, he concluded that the vessels were in a crossing situation. This was on the basis of the serious failures he had identified in the navigation of the KIVELI irrespective of whether Rule 14 or Rule 15 applied; those failures being breaches of Rules 2, 5, 7, 8, 34 and 36.
Practical matters
The detailed consideration of the evidence from the vessels' navigational equipment during the hearing, in the advice from the nautical assessor and in the judgment, highlights the importance of agreeing before trial an agreed plot or plots (whether static or animated) and also agreed transcripts of each vessel's audio files. Because of the large measure of agreement between the parties, there were only a small number of facts in dispute at trial. One point of note for those investigating collisions, and which only became clear during the hearing, was that KIVELI's VDR data system was not calibrated to the same time as the GPS time feeds being used by the Vessel's other navigational feeds such as her radar. This led to uncertainty as to which times were being used by the Vessel's Chief Officer when he made his statement.
Conclusion
The Judgment provides clarification as to the proper approach to be taken to determining when a head-on situation within Rule 14 arises as well as emphasising that knowledge of and adherence to the ColRegs is a fundamental aspect of good seamanship. The Judgment is a detailed consideration of the relevant authorities, commentaries and the predecessor to Rule 14 as well as a considered review of the language of Rule 14, not previously undertaken. The Judge, with the assistance of the expertise of the nautical assessor, Commodore Dorey, has interpreted and applied Rule 14 in a way which should be straight-forward not only for maritime lawyers to apply but, hopefully, also those who have to use the ColRegs in practice, often without the benefit of time to mull over which Rule applies.
Bryan J. refused permission to appeal ([2025] EWHC 1210 (Admiralty) so we will have to wait and see whether KIVELI renews her application to the Court of Appeal.
Nigel Cooper KC, instructed by MFB Solicitors (Mark Seward, Nico Saunders, Captn. Amarinder Singh Brar and Ellie Hall) and Tatham & Co. (Chris Farmer and Simon Tatham), acted for AFINA I.
Download Consequentials Judgment
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
