We critically analyse recent common law court judgments in collision cases and highlight the issues which arise from these judgments and which we consider to be of particular importance.
Our latest case commentary is on the judgment of the English Court in the X-PRESS MAHANADA / BURGAN collision.
This collision occurred in a narrow channel and is of particular interest because some of the liability was apportioned to a third vessel, the Shakti Sanchar. In our last paper we considered whether the Court could reasonably have found the Shakti Sanchar liable for this collision on the facts as it found them (the liability issue). In this paper we focus on two other issues we have with this judgment: whether the Court could properly apportion some (35%) of the liability for this collision to the Shakti Sanchar when her owners were not involved in these legal proceedings; and if so, whether as a matter of practice the Court should have done so in these circumstances (the policy issue).
To date we have published commentaries on the following collision cases:
1. WILFORCE/WESTERN MOSCOW
2. FMG SYDNEY/ MSC APOLLO
3. Rule 14- FMG SYDNEY/MSC APOLLO
4, NAVIGATOR ARIES/LEO PERDANA
5. BELPAREIL/KIRAN AUSTRALIA
6. ALNIC MC/ USS JOHN S MCCAIN
7. HUA SHENG HAI/KIRRIXKI
8. X-PRESS MAHANADA/BURGAN
- liability issue
Copies of these earlier case commentaries are available on request.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.