Introduction

The case of Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v. Nautical Challenge Ltd ([2018] EWCA Civ 2173) was adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on October 5, 2018. This landmark decision underscores the Admiralty Court's continued international jurisdiction, particularly highlighting the nuanced application of collision regulations in narrow channel scenarios.

The dispute arose from a collision between two large vessels—ALEXANDRA I, a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) owned by Nautical Challenge Ltd., and EVER SMART, a container vessel owned by Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited. The collision occurred near the port of Jebel Ali in the UAE under specific navigational circumstances that brought into question the applicability of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), specifically the crossing rules (Rules 15-17).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the crossing rules did not apply in this particular collision case. Instead, the narrow channel rule (Rule 9) and the requirement of good seamanship (Rule 2) governed the navigation of both vessels. The appellate court agreed with the initial judgment that ALEXANDRA I was not on a sufficiently defined course to invoke the crossing rules, as it was awaiting pilot boarding rather than actively navigating on a set course.

Consequently, liability was apportioned with EVER SMART bearing 80% responsibility and ALEXANDRA I 20%. This decision was primarily based on the relative culpability and the causative potency of each vessel's faults, with EVER SMART's excessive speed and inadequate lookout being major contributing factors to the collision and damage sustained.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to establish the applicability of navigational rules:

• The Canberra Star [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep 24: Supported the view that crossing rules do not apply when one vessel is entering a narrow channel.
• Kulemesin v HKSAR [2013] 16 HKCFA 195: Affirmed that vessels approaching a channel to enter it are governed by narrow channel rules, not crossing rules.
• The Albano [1907] AC 139: Differentiated the current case as it did not involve a narrow channel.
• The Empire Brent (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 306 and The Glenfalloch [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 247: Illustrated typical scenarios where crossing rules may or may not apply.

These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that in specific navigational contexts—such as narrow channels—the narrow channel rules take precedence over the general crossing rules to ensure safety and clarity in maritime navigation.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of COLREGS in the context of narrow channels. The key points include:

• Rule 15 (Crossing Situations): Generally obligates the vessel with the other on its starboard side to keep out of the way. However, in this case, the presence of a narrow channel introduced complexities.
• Rule 9 (Narrow Channel): Mandates vessels to keep as near to the starboard side of the channel as is safe and practicable.
• Rule 2 (Responsibility): Emphasizes good seamanship and adherence to the rules, taking into account all navigational dangers and special circumstances.

Teare J, the initial judge, reasoned that applying both the crossing rules and the narrow channel rules simultaneously could lead to conflicting obligations, potentially increasing the risk of collisions. By prioritizing Rule 9 and Rule 2, the court aimed to maintain navigational safety without the ambiguity that overlapping rules might introduce.

Additionally, the court considered whether ALEXANDRA I was on a sufficiently constant course to invoke the crossing rules, concluding that it was not, as the vessel was primarily waiting to embark a pilot.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for maritime law, particularly in navigational contexts involving narrow channels. Key impacts include:

• Clarification of Rule Applicability: Establishes that in scenarios where one vessel is navigating a narrow channel and another is approaching to enter it, the narrow channel rules supersede the general crossing rules.
• Safety in Navigation: Reinforces the priority of safety by avoiding rule conflicts, thereby providing clearer guidelines for vessels operating in congested or specialized navigational areas.
• Future Case Law: Sets a precedent that courts will likely follow in similar intersectional navigational disputes, ensuring consistency and predictability in Admiralty judgments.

Maritime operators operating in narrow channels must now more carefully consider the hierarchy of navigational rules, ensuring compliance with narrow channel rules even when crossing situations seemingly arise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Crossing Rules (Rules 15-17)

The Crossing Rules are a set of COLREGS that determine which vessel must yield in a crossing situation to prevent collisions. Specifically:

• Rule 15: When two vessels are crossing paths, the vessel with the other on its starboard (right) side must keep out of the way.
• Rule 16: The vessel required to keep out of the way must take early and substantial action to avoid collision.
• Rule 17: The stand-on vessel must maintain its course and speed.

Narrow Channel Rule (Rule 9)

Rule 9 applies to vessels navigating in narrow channels such as ports or rivers. It requires vessels to keep as near to the starboard (right) side of the channel as is safe and practicable.

Good Seamanship (Rule 2)

Rule 2 mandates that all navigational rules be interpreted with due regard to the circumstances, and to take into account all dangers of navigation and collision. It effectively requires the mariners to act with competence, caution, and prudence.

Apportionment of Liability

Apportionment involves determining the degree to which each vessel is responsible for a collision. It considers both the culpability (blameworthiness) and the causative potency (the extent to which a fault contributed to the collision and the resulting damage).

Conclusion

The Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v. Nautical Challenge Ltd judgment is pivotal in maritime law, particularly concerning the application of COLREGS in narrow channel scenarios. By prioritizing narrow channel rules and good seamanship over general crossing rules, the court has provided clearer guidance for vessels operating under complex navigational conditions. This decision not only enhances navigational safety but also sets a reliable precedent for future Admiralty cases, ensuring that legal obligations align with practical maritime operations.

Mariners and legal practitioners must now integrate this precedent into their understanding and application of navigational rules, especially in environments where narrow channels are prevalent. The judgment reinforces the importance of context-specific rule application, emphasizing that the overarching goal of collision regulations is to promote safe and efficient maritime navigation.