Bulk Atalanta, owners of the ship v Forest Pioneer, owners of the ship

Where visibility is intermittently reduced by rain, the restricted-visibility regime does not apply automatically. The court must assess the conditions overall and determine which Collision Regulations govern the encounter.

A vessel cannot create a collision risk by an intentional alteration of course and speed, then claim the status of a stand-on vessel. A poor lookout cannot be relied upon where it caused or contributed to the creation of the risk. The duties of good seamanship, proper radar lookout and timely reduction of headway remain central to the assessment of fault.

The claim arose from a collision between the bulk carriers Bulk Atalanta and Forest Pioneer in the approaches to Gibraltar on 27 November 2003.

Bulk Atalanta was inward bound to pick up a pilot. Forest Pioneer, departing after bunkering, altered course and increased speed while aware that an inbound vessel was manoeuvring to take a pilot. Both vessels alleged navigational fault against the other.

The issues included whether the vessels were navigating in restricted visibility, whether the crossing rules applied, whether either vessel failed to keep a proper lookout or take effective avoiding action, and the appropriate apportionment of blame.

1. Restricted visibility. The intermittent reduction in visibility caused by rain squalls did not make this a restricted-visibility case. The overall conditions required compliance with sections I and II of the Collision Regulations, but did not require the sound signals prescribed by Rule 35.
2. Conduct of Forest Pioneer. The alteration from approximately 165° to 210°, accompanied by an increase to half ahead, was grossly misjudged. It transformed comparative safety into an imminent collision risk. Even if the crossing rules had applied, Forest Pioneer had failed to maintain course and speed. More fundamentally, a vessel cannot rely on poor lookout after an alteration which creates a risk of collision that did not previously exist, while claiming stand-on status. The court drew a parallel with Tojo Maru [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep 365.
3. Lookout and avoiding action. Forest Pioneer should have detected Bulk Atalanta by radar before altering course. Once the collision course was identified, the appropriate action was vigorous reduction of headway. Dead slow ahead and subsequent helm manoeuvres were inadequate. The final reliance on an unexplained VHF order was not justified.
4. Conduct of Bulk Atalanta. The lookout was inadequate because the echo of Forest Pioneer should have been identified earlier. An alteration to starboard when the pilot boat was alongside would have been unsafe, but Bulk Atalanta should have taken off further way from about C-5. That fault was causative, since earlier reduction of speed would probably have avoided or reduced the collision.
5. Apportionment. Forest Pioneer created the dangerous situation and bore the substantially greater responsibility. Blame was apportioned 85 per cent to Forest Pioneer and 15 per cent to Bulk Atalanta.