Sakizaya Kalon, Owners of The Vessel v Panamax Alexander, Owners of The Vessel

In a collision involving vessels in convoy in the Suez Canal, the Collision Regulations required each vessel to make a full appraisal of the developing situation, treat a real possibility of collision as a risk of collision, and take positive action in ample time. The duty was not confined to imminent danger. Where a vessel ahead had suffered engine failure and the convoy was likely to moor, the following vessel had to reduce speed and, where necessary, moor before an area in which submarine cables prevented anchoring. Failure to do so was causative even though it occurred more than an hour before the collision. A vessel safely moored in the Canal was not required to leave its position when doing so would itself create exceptional danger. The first collision remained the real and effective cause of subsequent collisions in the absence of further causative negligence.

Three Admiralty actions arose from a series of collisions in the Suez Canal on 15 July 2018 involving the bulk carriers Sakizaya Kalon, Panamax Alexander and Osios David. The actions were heard together and concerned liability for the initial collision between Panamax Alexander and Sakizaya Kalon and the later collisions involving all three vessels.

The vessels were proceeding south in convoy after the container vessel Aeneas suffered engine failure and anchored in the Canal. The central issues were whether Panamax Alexander should have reduced speed, moored before KM 149, or dropped anchor earlier; whether Osios David and Sakizaya Kalon were at fault in their mooring decisions or subsequent manoeuvres; and whether the initial collision caused the later contacts.

1. Applicable duties. The obligations arose principally under Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Collision Regulations. The vessels had to maintain a proper lookout, proceed at a safe speed, determine whether a risk of collision existed and take positive action in ample time. A risk of collision was a real risk which a prudent master would recognise; it was not confined to imminent danger.
2. Panamax Alexander’s navigation. Panamax Alexander was in breach of Rule 6 by failing at about 1822 to put her engines astern. That breach was not shown to have caused the collision or contributed to the damage. However, by about 1845 her lookout should have shown that vessels ahead were slowing or mooring and that the Canal remained obstructed. Good seamanship required her to plan and execute a controlled mooring before KM 149. She could have done so. After passing the submarine cables south of KM 150.5, she further breached Rules 5, 7 and 8 by failing promptly to drop an anchor as part of that controlled mooring operation.
3. Osios David and Sakizaya Kalon. Each vessel ought to have given notice of its intention to moor. Neither failure was causative because Panamax Alexander had sufficient information independently to identify the risk. Osios David was not at fault in mooring just north of KM 152, using her anchor, remaining secured, or taking emergency action after the first collision. Sakizaya Kalon’s attempt to moor after KM 149 was open to criticism, but no causative fault was established. Her later actions occurred in the extraordinary peril created by the first collision and did not amount to want of skill contributing to the accidents.
4. Causation and outcome. The collision between Panamax Alexander and Sakizaya Kalon was caused by Panamax Alexander’s failure to moor before KM 149, assisted by her later failure to anchor. Applying a broad common-sense approach, the first collision remained the real and effective cause of the later collisions. Panamax Alexander was therefore wholly responsible for all the collisions. Counsel were directed to prepare orders giving effect to that conclusion in the three actions.

Three Admiralty actions concerning the collisions were commenced in the High Court and heard together. The judgment is a first-instance decision. No earlier appellate decision is stated.