Samco Europe, The Owners or Charterers of the Ship v MSC Prestige, The Owners or Charterers of the Ship

Collision liability is apportioned by assessing the relative blameworthiness and causative potency of each vessel’s faults. The exercise is qualitative, not a mechanical tally of breaches. The give-way vessel has no legally paramount duty, although its failure to take early and substantial action may have greater causative potency. A stand-on vessel may act under Rule 17(a)(ii) when it becomes objectively apparent that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate action. Effective visual lookout remains necessary despite ARPA and other navigational aids. VHF communication must not replace action required by the Collision Regulations.

The claim arose from a collision in the Gulf of Aden between the VLCC SAMCO EUROPE and the containership MSC PRESTIGE. Each vessel alleged that the other was primarily at fault. The parties agreed the vessels’ navigation from VDR data, but disputed the reasons for manoeuvres and the visual observations made by the officers of watch.

The issues included lookout, compliance with the give-way and stand-on obligations under the Collision Regulations, the appropriateness of VHF communication, and apportionment of responsibility.

1. Liability. The collision resulted from faults by both vessels. MSC PRESTIGE was held 60% responsible and SAMCO EUROPE 40% responsible.
2. Give-way vessel. MSC PRESTIGE failed to keep a good radar and visual lookout and failed to take early and substantial action under Rules 15 and 16. A substantial alteration to starboard of at least 20 degrees was required at about C-12. Later action was too late and insufficient.
3. Stand-on vessel. SAMCO EUROPE was entitled to act under Rule 17(a)(ii). Whether appropriate action by the give-way vessel had become apparent was an objective question assessed by reference to the prudent mariner and good seamanship. SAMCO EUROPE nevertheless breached Rule 17(c) by altering to port when it should have made a bold alteration to starboard.
4. Lookout and communications. Rule 5 required a proper visual lookout notwithstanding ARPA, because ARPA information was to an appreciable extent historic. VHF could exchange information but could not replace compliance with the Collision Regulations. The VHF conversations were inappropriate in the circumstances and increased culpability.
5. Apportionment. Under section 187(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, responsibility was apportioned by weighing relative culpability and causative potency. This was a qualitative exercise, not a tally of breaches. MSC PRESTIGE’s initial failure had the greater causative potency and its faults were more culpable overall.

First-instance collision claim determined in the High Court (Admiralty Division). No prior or appellate decision is stated in the judgment.