Selat Arjuna, Owners Of The Ship v Contship Success, Owners Of The Ship

In a maritime collision, a vessel shaping to pass another at a close but apparently safe distance may be required to continue using radar and a practicable plot, alongside visual observation. This is especially important where gradual alterations by the other vessel may not be readily apparent and a change of bearing does not exclude collision risk.

The duty to keep a good lookout includes appreciating, in reasonable time, that the closest point of approach is materially reducing. The appropriate response remains fact-sensitive. Where the other vessel’s navigation creates an unpredictable danger, standing on may be reasonable, and failure to make a hard alteration may not be negligent. No contributory fault was established.

The appeal concerned a collision between Selat Arjuna and Contship Success in the Arabian Sea. The Admiralty Court, in a judgment handed down on 22 July 1998 and reported at [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 488, held that Contship Success was alone to blame.

On appeal, its owners accepted that the vessel was very substantially at fault but argued that Selat Arjuna was also partly to blame for failing to maintain an adequate radar and visual lookout, detect the gradual alteration to starboard, and take earlier avoiding action. The central issue was whether those matters established contributory fault.

Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal with costs. Lord Justice Clarke gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Roch and Sir Christopher Slade agreeing.

1. Use of assessors. The first-instance judge had not asked all the questions necessary to resolve the dispute about the radar and visual observations. The Court of Appeal could therefore obtain appropriate advice from its own assessors, although it was not hearing an appeal from one set of assessors to another.
2. Radar and lookout. On the accepted facts, the master of Selat Arjuna should have continued watching the other vessel by radar after it was about 3.8 miles away and should have maintained a plot that was reasonably practicable given the limitations of the radar. This followed from good seamanship and was reinforced by Rules 5 and 7 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (as amended). Visual observation did not make radar unnecessary, since small alterations might not be readily detected and an appreciable change of bearing did not necessarily exclude collision risk.
3. Recognition of the alteration. The master should also have appreciated that the closest point of approach was significantly reducing and that Contship Success was altering course to starboard before the final hard turn. The court accepted that the gradual and unexpected alteration would take time to detect, but held that it should have been appreciated earlier.
4. Proper response. At about C-3, the correct action in the actual circumstances was to stand on. Altering to starboard risked the other vessel reversing its manoeuvre, slowing could have placed Selat Arjuna in the other vessel’s path, and hard to port could likewise have created danger if the gradual turn continued. Hard to port was rarely appropriate, and failure to take that course was not negligent.
5. The red sidelight had not been shown to be visible before the final hard turn. The earlier failures therefore did not establish causative contributory fault.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2000] EWCA Civ 121: appeal dismissed with costs.
• Admiralty Court — judgment handed down on 22 July 1998 and reported at [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 488: Contship Success was held alone to blame.