The case involved a collision between two bulk carriers off the south coast of Greece. As with the XPM and Burgan case, it highlights the complexity of the application of the 1972 Collision Regulations and the sometimes contradictory obligations that are placed on an officer of the watch (OOW) depending on their assessment of a close quarters situation.
The owners of the Afina I were of the view that the vessels were on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve a risk of collision alternatively that there was a doubt as to whether that head-on situation existed. They accordingly argued that in terms of Rule 14, both vessels were obliged to alter course to starboard so as to avoid the risk of collision. They further argued that in the event that this was not a head-on situation, but rather a crossing situation, the Kiveli was enjoined by crossing Rule 17 not to alter course to port.
The owners of the Kiveli argued that this was a crossing situation because the evidence showed that the Afina I always had the Kiveli on her starboard side. The Afina I was accordingly obliged in terms of crossing Rule 17 to take action to avoid the collision by altering course to starboard, alternatively reducing her speed.
The court, using the standard approach adopted by the courts, analysed the conduct of the OOWs on each vessel by reference to their underlying obligations to: proceed at a safe speed; maintain a proper lookout; and use all available means to determine if a risk of collision existed.
In the analysis, the court held that the OOW on the Kiveli failed to maintain a proper lookout and failed to use all available means to assess the risk of collision. On modern vessels there are numerous aids designed to eliminate the OOW’s need to carry out sometimes complex calculations to determine whether a risk of collision exists. In this case, the OOW failed to use the even most traditional system available on the bridge, namely, his own eyesight to ascertain whether or not the relative bearing of the Afina I was changing. If the bearing remains the same or nearly the same and the vessels are approaching one another, they will inevitably collide.
Having analysed the large amount of data regarding the vessels’ movements from the AIS, ECDIS and ARPA recorded on the ship’s black box, the court found that the Kiveli was 80% to blame and the Afina I 20% to blame. The apportionment of blame to Afina I was principally because the Afina I could have taken earlier and bolder steps to alter course to starboard in order to avoid the risk of collision.
On 13 April 2026 the court granted Monford leave to appeal against this judgement and we will update you once the Court of Appeal has wrestled with the issues highlighted above.
Monford Management Limited (mv Kiveli) vs Afina Navigation Limited (mv Afina I) [2025] EWHC 1185