Krysia Maritime Inc v Intership Ltd

Owners and operators of vessels must exercise reasonable care to ensure that equipment used in operations does not create a foreseeable hazard to nearby shipping. A loose rope, or securing arrangements excessively slack in the prevailing swell, may constitute negligent management where supply vessels are expected to manoeuvre nearby. A vessel’s master may also be at fault for entering or remaining in an unsafe position between fenders. Where faults in the management of one vessel and the navigation of another combine to cause damage, liability is apportioned according to the relative culpability and causative potency of each fault.

The claimants’ vessel, KRYSIA, suffered damage to an outer port propeller, gearbox and shaft after fouling a rope and wire attached to a Yokohama fender on the defendants’ barge, EUROPA. The fouling occurred while KRYSIA was manoeuvring during the back-loading of a container in swell and current conditions.

The issues included whether the pick-up rope was loose, whether the fender’s securing arrangements were excessively slack, whether either vessel was negligently manoeuvred or managed, and how any contributory fault should be apportioned.

1. The claimants established that the pick-up rope initially fouled KRYSIA’s propeller and drew in the securing wire. On the balance of probabilities, the rope was loose in the water. The defendants were negligent in permitting that hazard to exist in an area where supply vessels regularly manoeuvred (paras [39], [44], [48]).

2. Alternatively, if the rope remained secured, the securing wire and rope were excessively slack. Although some submergence was permissible in a two-metre swell, submergence of approximately 2.1 to 2.5 metres was excessive and contrary to good seamanship. The defendants were responsible for the resulting hazard (paras [49], [55]-[61]).

3. The defendants owed a duty, as owners responsible for the management of EUROPA, to exercise reasonable care and skill to ensure that the barge and its fender arrangements did not pose a danger to shipping. Damage to a propeller, engine, gearbox or tailshaft was foreseeable in the circumstances (paras [60]-[61]).

4. KRYSIA was also at fault. The master allowed the vessel to enter the area between the forward fender and the surfer landing platform, despite the swell, current and the danger posed by the fender arrangements. His inattention or slow reaction was causative of the fouling, although the defendants’ faults were considerably more culpable and causatively potent (paras [62]-[66]).

5. The incident involved fault in the management of EUROPA and fault in the navigation of KRYSIA. Applying The Norwhale [1975] 1 QB 589, the apportionment fell within section 187(1) and (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Liability was apportioned 70 per cent to EUROPA and 30 per cent to KRYSIA (paras [67]-[69]).

6. The pleading objection was rejected. Applying the approach referred to in Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558 at paragraph 143, the substance of the allegation had been put clearly to the master, even though it had not expressly been described as negligence or bad seamanship (paras [33]-[34]).