Eleftheria, Owners & Demise Charterers of v Hakki Deval, Owners & Demise Charterers of

In restricted visibility, vessels detected by radar or AIS must continue to comply with the collision regulations. A close-quarters situation may develop well before visual contact, particularly where the predicted closest point of approach is small. A vessel must proceed at a safe speed and take early, substantial action to avoid collision. An alteration to port by a vessel confronted with a developing close-quarters situation may be inadvisable where it fails to remove the risk; a bold alteration to starboard or vigorous reduction of speed may instead be required. Where the court sits with nautical assessors, expert evidence on navigation and seamanship is generally inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances justify its admission.

The claim arose from a collision between the bulk carriers Eleftheria and Hakki Deval in restricted visibility in the Mediterranean Sea. Each vessel disputed the other’s course, speed, lookout, alterations of helm, engine action, fog signals and alleged VHF agreement. The court also considered the admissibility of expert evidence on seamanship and breaches of the collision regulations, having been assisted by two Elder Brethren of Trinity House as nautical assessors. The central issues were the factual reconstruction of the vessels’ approaches, the application of the collision regulations in restricted visibility, causation, and apportionment of blame.

1. Expert evidence. Expert evidence on navigation and seamanship is generally inadmissible where the court is assisted by nautical assessors. Exceptions may arise for unfamiliar ship types, remote geographical areas, or matters outside the assessors’ general competence. The seamanship reports were therefore excluded, although expert reconstructions might be used illustratively in argument.
2. Factual findings. Eleftheria proceeded at about 13 knots, altered 12° to port, and later put her helm 15° to port. Hakki Deval proceeded at about 8 knots and altered to starboard at approximately C-20. The alleged VHF agreement was rejected. Both vessels had inadequate lookouts and failed effectively to monitor the other’s approach.
3. Collision regulations. The vessels were navigating in restricted visibility within Rule 19. The regulations applied to vessels in or near an area of restricted visibility. A close-quarters situation was developing when the echoes were detected at about eight miles with a predicted closest point of approach of approximately three cables.
4. Faults. Eleftheria proceeded at excessive speed, made an ill-advised alteration to port, and failed to take vigorous action to reduce speed by about C-6. Hakki Deval made an unsafe alteration of 15° to starboard after detecting Eleftheria’s porting and failed to take vigorous action to reduce speed or make a round turn.
5. Apportionment. The excessive speed and port alteration made Eleftheria primarily responsible, but both vessels’ poor lookout and inadequate avoiding action were causative. Liability was apportioned two-thirds to Eleftheria and one-third to Hakki Deval.

Not stated in the judgment; this was a first-instance decision.