Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6

A collision occurred between two vessels near the entrance to Jebel Ali port. The Supreme Court considered whether crossing rules under the Collision Regulations apply when one vessel exits a narrow channel while another waits to enter. The Court held the crossing rules were not displaced merely because the approaching vessel intended to enter the channel.

Facts

On 11 February 2015, the container vessel EVER SMART and the VLCC ALEXANDRA 1 collided in the pilot boarding area just outside the dredged entrance channel to Jebel Ali port in the UAE. EVER SMART was outbound from the port, proceeding along the narrow channel, while ALEXANDRA 1 was inbound, waiting in the pilot boarding area to pick up a pilot before entering the channel. The vessels approached each other on a steady bearing for approximately 23 minutes before the collision. EVER SMART was navigating to the port of mid-channel in breach of rule 9 of the Collision Regulations and failed to keep proper lookout. ALEXANDRA 1 was moving very slowly in a generally ESE direction but was not on a steady course.

Issues

Question 1

Whether the crossing rules are inapplicable or should be disapplied where an outbound vessel is navigating within a narrow channel and has a vessel on a crossing course approaching the narrow channel with the intention of and in preparation for entering it.

Question 2

Whether there is a requirement for the putative give-way vessel to be on a steady course before the crossing rules can be engaged.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the crossing rules did apply throughout the relevant period before the collision.

On Question 1

The Court held that the crossing rules are not overridden by the narrow channel rules merely because an approaching vessel is intending and preparing to enter the narrow channel. The crossing rules are only overridden if and when the approaching vessel is shaping to enter, adjusting her course so as to reach the entrance on her starboard side of it, on her final approach.

Where an outbound vessel in a narrow channel is crossing with an approaching vessel so as to involve a risk of collision, the crossing rules are not overridden by the narrow channel rules merely because the approaching vessel is intending and preparing to enter the narrow channel.

On Question 2

The Court held that if two vessels, both moving over the ground, are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the engagement of the crossing rules is not dependent upon the give-way vessel being on a steady course.

If it is reasonably apparent to those navigating the two vessels that they are approaching each other on a steady bearing (over time) which is other than head-on, then they are indeed both crossing, and crossing so as to involve a risk of collision, even if the give-way vessel is on an erratic course.

The Court emphasised that risk of collision is determined by whether the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change (rule 7(d)(i)), not by whether either vessel is on a steady course.

Key Legal Principles

The Court reaffirmed that the crossing rules lie at the heart of the scheme for avoiding collisions and should be applied wherever possible. As stated by Lord Wright in The Alcoa Rambler:

wherever possible articles 19 and 21 ought to be applied and strictly enforced because they tend to secure safe navigation.

The Court also clarified the relationship between the narrow channel rules and crossing rules, holding that there is no necessity to disapply the crossing rules for vessels waiting to enter a narrow channel, as opposed to those actively shaping their final approach to enter.

Implications

This judgment provides important clarification of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972. It establishes that the crossing rules have broader application than previously understood in the lower courts. Mariners must now understand that merely waiting to enter a narrow channel does not exempt a vessel from crossing rule obligations. The decision emphasises the primacy of steady bearing observations over steady course requirements in determining collision risk, providing clearer guidance for navigation safety worldwide.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The crossing rules applied to both vessels throughout the relevant period before the collision. The matter of apportionment of liability was remitted to the Admiralty Court for re-determination.

Source: Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd [2021] UKSC 6