Case law summary
Two vessels collided almost head on while navigating in the river leading up to the port of Chittagong while under pilotage. The case highlights the importance of nautical assessors in providing guidance to the court on the application and interpretation of several interacting rules from the 1972 Collision Regulations, which are of almost universal application. It also reflects the approach taken by courts when dealing with apportionment of liability.
A containership, XPM, was inbound on a rising tide and had a three knot current from astern which meant she had to steam faster in order to maintain steerage. The river contains a number of tight bends and the channel was well marked by buoys. The XPM, as required by Rule 9 relating to narrow channels, stayed on the starboard side of the channel as much as possible. While navigating one of the tight turns to port, she was pointed at a considerable angle to port and looked as if she was crossing from the starboard side to the port side. This however was because the current was pushing her towards the bank and although it looked as if she was steering across the channel, she was in fact proceeding along it. This would have been clear from the radar and AIS information.
The Burgan was a tanker sailing from the port and had previously made a number of alterations to the port or “wrong” side of the channel in order to avoid close quarters situations with other incoming vessels. The Masters of both vessels reported that the pilots had a fairly cavalier approach to navigation presumably due to their close familiarity with navigating in that river.
A few minutes before the collision, the vessels were in sight of one another, but neither was monitoring the movement of the other vessel using the automatic radar plotting aid or AIS. At that point, a naval vessel appeared to be crossing the channel, but the Burgan in particular could not determine what her intentions were. The Burgan ended up altering course even further to port to avoid the naval vessel following which a collision took place between the Burgan and the XPM.
In the judgment the court analysed each ships’ conduct by reference to a number of rules including those relating to: safe speed; narrow channels; proper lookout; use of navigational equipment; and use of sound signals. The court then analysed each vessel’s compliance with these Rules and made a determination as to whether a particular breach of each Rule was causative of the collision or created a risk of collision.
The English courts rely heavily on nautical assessors and this case highlights the importance of having either a judge with specific knowledge of an area of law or practice or a court appointed assessor/expert to assist them on technical issues.
Ultimately, the court found the Burgan 65% to blame. Although critical of certain of the bridge practices on the XPM, the court found that ship faultless as the bridge practises were not causative of the collision. The other 35% of the blame for the collision was attributed to the naval vessel which was not a party to the proceedings.
The case reminds us of the complexity of the Collision Regulations and their interaction with one another. The officers of the watch/Master and pilot are called on often to make value judgments on competing obligations under different Rules. This is one of the reasons why the application of the Rules to Maritime Autonomous Ships (MASS) is considered so difficult. This is particularly so with MASS 4 which are fully autonomous vessels.
Owners of the X-Press Mahanada v Owner of the Burgan [2025] EWHC 721