Authored by Malcolm Hartwell.
On 11 March 2026 the court of appeal upheld the trial court’s decision involving a collision between two bulk carriers off the south coast of Greece. Although this is the first Court of Appeal decision dealing with the interpretation of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations, the Court was not drawn to comment on most of the appellant’s arguments with regard to the interpretation of the Rule because it found, on the facts, that the trial court judgment should be upheld.
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 15 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 trial court, using the standard approach adopted by the courts, analysed the conduct of the officers of the watch (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 trial 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 even the 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 trial court found that the Kiveli was 80% to blame and the Afina I was 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.
The Court of Appeal and its nautical assessors agreed with all these factual findings.
Rule 14 states:
“(a) 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.
(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists, she shall assume that it does and act accordingly.”
The Kiveli had argued on appeal that:
1 Rule 14(b) should be read in conjunction with Rule 14(a) to determine whether or not a head-on situation existed;
2 ahead or nearly ahead meant that the vessel must be visible within a six degree arc over the other vessel’s centre line which is the arc of visibility of a vessel’s side light;
3 Rule 14(b) should be read as requiring visibility of side lights in addition to masthead lights being in line or nearly in line; and
4 for Rule 14(b) to be applicable, the conditions had to be satisfied by both vessels.
The Court of Appeal declined to pronounce on the definitional issues and endorsed a practical interpretation of Rules 14 (a) and (b). Surprisingly, neither Court relied on Rule 14 (c) to cut through any technical arguments regarding arcs of visibility, the interpretation of “and/or” or whether both or only one vessel had to have the same view at the time risk of collision started to exist. The courts agreed that this was 22 minutes before the collision when the vessels were 9 miles (17 kilometres) apart.
As with many collision cases this decision highlights the considerable burden on watchkeepers in complying with the Rules. This is because: all of the Rules require a continuous assessment of changing circumstances and conditions; all of the Rules must be assessed against “special circumstances” and the “ordinary practice of seafarers”; some of the Rules are prescriptive and some of the Rules require discretion to be exercised; and one of the Rules says that the Rules must be ignored “if necessary”.
AI systems are particularly adept at processing large amounts of data and assessing numerous alternatives quickly which may eliminate human error. We are sure however that initially at least, AI error for a faulty algorithm will merely replace human error when courts apportion blame.
On 13 April 2026, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We will update you on the above issues once the Supreme Court hands down a judgment.
Monford Management Limited (mv Kiveli) vs Afina Navigation Limited (mv Afina I) [2025] EWHC 1185