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. So too, do many English law firms.
Peter Thornton/Hill Dickinson recently published a paper on the judgment of the English Court in the KIVELI / AFINA I collision entitled 'Head-on or Crossing: do the travaux to the 1972 COLREGS cast a different light?' This paper makes for very interesting reading and suggests that the English Court's interpretation and application of the head-on rule, Rule 14, in this case was wrong.
In our latest case commentary we consider this paper and the arguments which Peter Thornton/Hill Dickinson present therein, and set out the reasons why we believe the English court in this case has properly interpreted and applied Rule 14.
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
9. X-PRESS MAHANADA/BURGAN
- jurisdiction and policy issues
10. KIVELI/AFINA I
- Application of Rule 14
11. KIVLELI/AFINA I
- Apportionment of liability
12. THE KIVELI CASE
- Rule 14 & The Travaux Preparatoires
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.