Kamal XXVI, The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship and Barge v The Owners of the Ship Ariela

In a collision involving a dredger and an inward-bound vessel, liability depends on the vessel’s navigation in the available channel and on whether any breach by the stationary vessel caused the collision. A vessel proceeding at slow speed must make an alteration of course and apply helm sufficiently early to navigate safely. If there is insufficient steerage way, engine revolutions should be increased. An unlit working barge is not necessarily causative of a collision where it was visible at a substantial distance and illumination from the dredger was adequate. A stationary dredger and its attendant barge may occupy a position near the channel edge where the remaining navigable width safely accommodates passing traffic.

The claim arose from a collision in the entrance channel to Mormugoa between the defendants’ bulk carrier Ariela and the claimants’ barge Kamal XXIV, which was moored alongside the dredger Kamal XXVI. The principal issues were the dredger’s position, the position of its anchors, whether the barge was lit, and the timing and extent of Ariela’s alteration to starboard.

The court also considered the proper use of nautical assessors’ advice and computer simulations in resolving navigational facts. The central question was whether either vessel was at fault and, if so, whether that fault caused the collision.

1. Findings and liability. Judgment was entered for the claimants. Ariela proceeded up the middle of the channel at about four knots, altered course too late and failed to apply sufficient helm. If there had been insufficient steerage way, the engines should have been worked at increased revolutions.

2. The dredger was anchored in the vicinity of Buoy 10, substantially outside the channel edge. Its port anchors were also outside the channel. When Ariela approached, the dredger ceased dredging and moved northwards, but the barge still left approximately 280 metres of navigable channel.

3. The barge was unlit, apart from illumination provided by the dredger’s deck lights. That omission was not causative. The pilot had seen the barge at about 1½ miles, and the nautical assessors advised that a passing distance of 12 metres from the dredger was obviously dangerous and unseamanlike.

4. The court accepted the Elder Brethren’s advice that the wind and tide did not materially affect the relevant manoeuvring assessment. Computer simulations were useful to show what could or could not have happened, but their assumptions and margins of error meant that they could not determine what actually happened.

5. Following The Bow Spring and The Manzanilla II [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, the parties were entitled to comment on the assessors’ advice. The defendants’ further expert evidence directed to that advice was considered inappropriate and inconsistent with the rationale explained in The Global Mariner and The Atlantic Crisader [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 699.

6. The dredger was not at fault. The collision was caused by Ariela’s late turn and inadequate helm, and judgment was therefore given for the claimants.