Global Mariner, Owners and Bareboat Charterers of v Atlantic Crusader, Owners and Bareboat Charterers of

In a collision between a vessel under way and a vessel at anchor, an anchored vessel in a narrow channel may owe a duty to control known yawing and swaying, even where its anchorage is not itself unsafe. An open moor and persistent helm may be required by good seamanship. A vessel under way must maintain a proper lookout, use available means such as radar, assess vessel behaviour and proceed at a safe speed under the Collision Regulations 1972. The master remains responsible for planning an unberthing manoeuvre and cannot delegate that responsibility to a local pilot. Liability depends on causation, not merely the last opportunity to avoid collision. Where one vessel’s faults caused the collision and the other vessel’s fault would not have prevented it, the causative vessel is solely to blame.

The claim arose from a collision in the River Orinoco between the claimant vessel, Global Mariner, which was leaving a berth with tug and pilot assistance, and the defendant vessel, Atlantic Crusader, which was anchored nearby. Atlantic Crusader had repeatedly dragged and was yawing and swaying in the current. The court considered the safety of the anchorage, the anchored vessel’s duties to control its movement, the lookout and unberthing manoeuvre of Global Mariner, causation, and apportionment of blame. The central issue was whether the collision was caused by faults of both vessels or solely by Global Mariner.

The claim was dismissed. Global Mariner was held solely to blame for the collision and no apportionment arose.

1. The court adopted the procedure in Bow Spring (Owners) v Manzanillo II (Owners) [2004] EWCA 1007. In collision cases, questions and answers from nautical assessors should ordinarily be disclosed to counsel, who should have an opportunity to address whether the advice should be accepted. The topics should be canvassed by final submissions, while further disclosure may be unnecessary where proportionality and finality make it inappropriate.
2. Atlantic Crusader’s anchorage was not unsafe merely because it was in a channel near busy berths. Ships were accustomed to anchor there and there was no sufficient evidence that the position was unlawful or inappropriate. Nevertheless, the vessel owed a duty of good seamanship to control known yawing and swaying, both to maximise sea room and to reduce the risk of dragging.
3. Atlantic Crusader was at fault in failing to adopt an open moor of about 60 degrees or more, in failing effectively to use her helm, and in failing to give appropriate instructions. The court did not criticise the failure to use engines astern, which was not an obvious measure for an ordinarily competent master.
4. Global Mariner breached Rules 5 and 7 of the Collision Regulations 1972. Those on board failed to form an accurate appraisal of the positions and behaviour of the anchored vessels, failed to use available radar to plot their positions, and failed to observe Atlantic Crusader’s pronounced yawing. The master also failed to plan the unberthing manoeuvre; responsibility could not be left to the local pilot.
5. Global Mariner’s sustained use of full ahead during the turn took her too far north, too far downstream and too close to the anchored vessels. It breached Rule 6 of the Collision Regulations 1972, which required account to be taken of traffic density and the strong current. The later stop-engines order was not treated as causative.
6. Although Atlantic Crusader was at fault, the collision would probably have occurred even if she had controlled her yaw. Global Mariner’s failures of appreciation, lookout and manoeuvre were causative. The last-opportunity rule did not determine liability. Had Atlantic Crusader’s fault been causative, the court stated academically that liability would have been apportioned 90 per cent to Global Mariner and 10 per cent to Atlantic Crusader.