Bow Spring, owner of the Ship v Owners of the Ship Manzanillo II

A vessel approaching a dredging area must take reasonable steps to make clear that it will not impede a ship confined by draught to a navigable channel. Where the approaching vessel’s course and speed create a close-quarters risk, substantial alteration and appropriate communication may be required.

A ship faced with uncertainty about another vessel’s intentions should ordinarily reduce speed, using astern action if necessary. Deliberately grounding to avoid a perceived collision may constitute contributory fault where safer navigational action was reasonably available. Liability is apportioned according to the causative fault of each vessel.

The claimant chemical tanker Bow Spring grounded outside the Northern By-pass Channel of the Suez Canal while attempting to avoid the defendant dredger Manzanillo II. The tanker was laden and could safely navigate only within the channel. The dredger was approaching the dredging area and appeared to be shaping to cross ahead.

The issues were whether Manzanillo II was at fault in failing to make her intentions clear, whether that fault caused or contributed to the grounding, and whether Bow Spring was itself at fault in choosing to beach rather than reduce speed.

1. Fault of the dredger. Manzanillo II knew, or ought to have known, that northbound vessels might fear that she would enter the by-pass channel. The navigational warning did not identify the precise dredging area or the direction from which dredgers would approach. The dredger should therefore have made it clear that she would not enter the channel and should have altered substantially to port. Her slow alteration was negligent.

2. Fault of the tanker. The tanker was reasonably concerned about the dredger’s intentions and closest point of approach. It was understandable that the dredger was not recognised as such, and the available warning was insufficiently precise. Nevertheless, the appropriate response was to reduce speed, with astern action if necessary. The decision to beach the tanker was a hurried and ill-considered over-reaction.

3. Causation and apportionment. The dredger’s conduct created the dangerous situation and contributed to the grounding. The tanker’s contributory fault also materially caused the loss. Responsibility was apportioned equally: Manzanillo II was assessed as 50% at fault.