"Nordlake" (The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Vessel) v "Seaeagle" Now Named MV Elbella (The Owners of the Vessel)

A vessel proceeding along the course of a narrow channel remains subject to Rule 9 of the Collision Regulations even if it navigates outside the dredged channel. A vessel cannot use a VHF agreement to justify navigation contrary to the Collision Regulations, unless departure is necessary to avoid immediate danger. Under section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, liability must reflect the causative fault of every vessel contributing to the collision, including vessels not party to the proceedings. Apportionment depends on the relative culpability and causative potency of each vessel’s faults, assessed broadly and on common-sense principles.

Two merchant vessels, NORDLAKE and SEAEAGLE, narrowly avoided collision while navigating the entrance to Mumbai and shortly afterwards NORDLAKE collided with the Indian warship VINDHYAGIRI. The proceedings concerned the navigational fault of NORDLAKE and SEAEAGLE and, insofar as relevant to apportionment, the fault of VINDHYAGIRI, GODAVARI and a further warship. The Indian vessels were not parties and gave no evidence.

The court had to determine the application of the narrow-channel rule, the effect of VHF passing agreements, the vessels’ respective faults and causation, and whether section 187 required the court to take account of the fault of non-party vessels when apportioning liability.

1. Rule 9 and the channel. The dredged channel was the narrow channel for the purposes of Rule 9. A vessel proceeding along its course remains subject to Rule 9 even when it has navigated just outside the channel. NORDLAKE was therefore required to keep as near as safe and practicable to the starboard limit of the channel.
2. VHF agreements. VHF may exchange navigational information but cannot lawfully be used to agree a course contrary to the Collision Regulations. NORDLAKE’s green-to-green agreement with the warships was improper and did not constitute a special circumstance justifying departure under Rule 2. There was no immediate danger when the agreement was made.
3. Fault. NORDLAKE was at fault for breaching Rules 9, 6 and 5. SEAEAGLE was at fault for poor lookout, requesting a green-to-green passing with NORDLAKE and briefly proceeding to port thereafter. GODAVARI was at fault in altering to port and increasing speed after requesting a green-to-green passing. VINDHYAGIRI was at fault for poor lookout and for altering to port and attempting to cross ahead of NORDLAKE. The crossing rule did not govern the encounter between vessels proceeding in opposite directions along the narrow channel; the narrow-channel rule governed.
4. Non-party vessels and apportionment. Section 187 required the court to take account of the causative fault of VINDHYAGIRI and GODAVARI, although neither was a party. The relevant assessment was of each vessel’s relative culpability and causative potency. NORDLAKE’s deliberate breach of Rule 9 created the dangerous situation and had substantially greater causative potency. Liability for the collision damage was apportioned 60% to NORDLAKE, 20% to VINDHYAGIRI, 10% to GODAVARI and 10% to SEAEAGLE.
5. NORDLAKE was entitled to a declaration limiting its liability to SEAEAGLE to 6,680,800 Special Drawing Rights under the applicable limitation regime.