Collisions at Sea - Volume 1: Liability and the Collision Regulations
Collisions at Sea - Volume 2: Case Studies
Proper compliance with the COLREGS requires not just an understanding of what the Rules say, but an understanding also, of how the Rules are to be interpreted; and when it comes to interpreting the Rules the courts are the final arbiters. Understanding how the courts interpret the Rules and apportion liability therefore, will benefit both mariners and marine lawyers.
Most mariners are encouraged to learn the Rules to the point where they can recite them almost word for word; to know by heart what the Rules say. They are then taught by more experienced mariners in the classrooms and on the bridge of ships at sea how to apply the Rules in practice. During this teaching process however, very little if any mention is made of the many court cases involving collisions at sea. We learn from our mistakes, and preferably from the mistakes of others; and we believe mariners as well as marine lawyers have much to gain from studying the judgments of the courts in these cases.
These are the main reasons why Harry wrote this book. Volume 1 examines those Rules of the COLREGS which the mariner must particularly consider when determining whether there is a risk of collision and what action he is going to take to avoid collision. These are the Rules which the marine lawyer must also particularly consider when determining fault and how liability for a collision at sea should be apportioned. The current COLREGS came into force internationally on 15 July, 1977 and since their entry into force the English courts have been called upon to apportion liability in over 50 cases involving collisions at sea. Volume 2 examines the judgments in most of these cases as well as earlier, landmark cases which are still particularly relevant today when deciding how the current Rules are to be applied. Every case study includes a plot showing how the two ships came into collision (like the one on our Home page), kindly prepared for Harry by Captain Bruce Ewen, Director of Aulis Insights Pte Ltd in Singapore, experts in the reconstruction the movements of two ships in collision.
The book is very reasonably priced, and we would encourage all mariners and marine lawyers, and all those involved in teaching the Rules, investigating the causes of collisions at sea, and handling ship collision cases, to buy a copy. Royalties on sales go to the Mission to Seafarers.
A fair apportionment ? The ALNIC MC / USS JOHN S McCAIN collision (2022 JIML Volume 28, Issue 2)
Examines the judgment of the US District Court apportioning liability for a collision involving an overtaking situation where the overtaking vessel (USS JOHN S McCAIN) mistakenly thought she had lost control of her steering and switched on her 'Not under Command' lights. What are the obligations of the stand-on vessel in this type of case, where the overtaking vessel is still required pursuant to Rules 13 and 18 of the COLREGS to keep out of the way even though she is 'Not under Command' ?
Avoiding collisions at sea - a new but wrong course for the marine industry? The EVER SMART/ALEXANDRA I collision (2021 JIML Volume 27, Issue 5)
Examines the judgment of the UK Supreme Court to determine whether the crossing rule, Rule 15 of the COLREGS, applies when two vessels are approaching on crossing courses at the entrance to a narrow channel; and also whether there is any requirement for the putative give-way vessel to be on a steady course in order for this Rule to apply. This is a very important judgment because it is binding on the English lower courts and is likely to be very persuasive in other common law jurisdictions. Many believe the judgment provides much needed clarity on the application of Rule 15 and particularly in these types of cases. But does it?
Apportioning liability for collisions at sea: The DREAM STAR - a good start for the Singapore Court (2017 JIML Volume 23, Issue 5)
Examines the judgment of the Singapore Court apportioning liability for the DREAM STAR/MEGHNA PRINCESS collision where Harry believes the judge reached the right decision although he found her legal reasoning questionable. Did this case involve a situation where Rule 13 or Rule 15 of the COLREGS applied? Or was it a case for applying Rule 2 and determining liability by applying rules of good seamanship, and not Rules 13 or 15?
Narrow channels - a missed opportunity for a new legal test. The NEFTEGAZ 67/ YAO HAI collision (2013 JIML Volume 19, Issue 4)
Examines the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") in the criminal proceedings against the master of the NEFTEGAZ 67. In this case the two vessels were approaching on crossing courses and collided just outside the entrance to a buoyed channel. The CFA determined the buoyed channel was a narrow channel, and that the narrow channel rule, Rule 9 of the COLREGS, applied to the navigation of both vessels. Was the buoyed channel properly a 'narrow channel' within the meaning of the COLREGS? Should Rule 9 apply to the navigation of both vessels in this type of case, and if so, how should it be applied? Should Rule 15 also apply? Critically, should the master have been found guilty?
The crossing rule : Has the UK Supreme Court muddied the waters?
The EVER SMART/ALEXANDRA I collision - Part 1 (SEAWAYS, March 2022)
Examines the practical difficulties associated with the UK Supreme Court's findings that 'course' for the purposes of applying the COLREGS means a vessel's course over the ground; that Rule 15 applies if the two vessels are both moving over the ground and crossing so as to involve risk of collision; and that there is no requirement for either vessel to be on a 'course' let alone on a 'steady course' in order for Rule 15 to apply. Far from clarifying the position, Harry believes these findings have made the application of Rule 15 more uncertain for mariners.
The crossing rule : Has the UK Supreme Court muddied the waters?
The EVER SMART/ALEXANDRA I collision - Part 2 (SEAWAYS, April 2022)
Examines the practical difficulties associated with the UK Supreme Court's findings that crossing situations where one vessel is approaching the entrance to a narrow channel at risk of collision with an outbound vessel navigating in that channel fall into 3 broad groups (the 'Group Test'); and that Rule 15 applies in situations falling into Groups 1 and 3, but not to situations falling into Group 2. Explains why Harry believes this new Group Test will be unworkable in practice; why it is unnecessary and is not supported by legal authority; and how it is prejudicial to the vessel navigating outbound in the narrow channel. Again, far from clarifying the position, Harry believes this new 'Group Test' has made the application of Rule 15 in these situations even more uncertain.
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.