Owners of the Ship "Topaz" v Owners of the Ship "Irapua"

In a crossing collision, a stand-on vessel must take avoiding action when it becomes apparent that the give-way vessel is not complying with the Collision Regulations. Where the vessels are closing rapidly, remain on a steady bearing and are about three miles apart, Rule 17(a)(ii) may require action before the situation reaches the stage governed by Rule 17(b).

A small alteration of course may be inadequate. On the facts, a bold starboard alteration of at least 30 degrees was required; a 10-degree alteration was a causative fault. Rule 17(b) also required earlier action when the vessels were about two miles apart. The give-way vessel’s grave failure to keep a lookout remained the overwhelmingly greater fault.

The claim arose from a collision between the ore/oil carrier The “Topaz” and the bulk carrier The “Irapua” off the east coast of Brazil on 6 May 1991.

It was common ground that this was a crossing case. “Topaz” was the stand-on vessel and “Irapua” was the give-way vessel. “Irapua” accepted that it had failed to keep a proper lookout and had breached Rules 5, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of the Collision Regulations 1972.

The central issues were whether “Topaz” had kept a proper lookout, whether it had made an earlier starboard alteration, and whether its final hard-starboard manoeuvre was taken sufficiently early under Rule 17.

1. Findings on navigation. The court accepted that “Topaz” probably observed “Irapua” by radar and visually when about 12 miles away. Errors in the recorded bearing, timing and distance affected the quality of the lookout but were not causative.

2. Rule 17(a)(ii). When the vessels were closing rapidly, “Irapua” remained on a constant bearing and had taken no avoiding action, and the vessels were about three miles apart, Rule 17(a)(ii) applied. “Topaz” was then obliged to take avoiding action by her own manoeuvre.

3. The 10-degree starboard alteration was a “nibble”. It was too small in the circumstances. The nautical assessors advised, and the court accepted, that a bold starboard alteration of at least 30 degrees would have avoided the collision. The 10-degree alteration was therefore negligent and causative.

4. Rule 17(b). The stand-on vessel was required to act when it found itself so close that collision could not be avoided by the give-way vessel alone. That point arose when the vessels were about two miles apart, approximately five minutes before collision. Leaving the hard-starboard manoeuvre until about 90 seconds before collision was too late. The size and manoeuvrability of “Irapua” were irrelevant, since they would have been unknown to the officer of the watch.

5. There were no causative faults concerning the alleged sound and light signals or VHF calls. Both vessels were at fault, but “Irapua”’s complete failure to keep a lookout or take any avoiding action was grave and inexcusable. Having regard to blameworthiness and causation, responsibility was apportioned 80 per cent to “Irapua” and 20 per cent to “Topaz”.