Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v Nautical Challenge Ltd

The crossing rules apply when two power-driven vessels, moving over the ground, are visibly crossing so as to involve a risk of collision. Neither vessel must first be on a steady course. An appreciably unchanging compass bearing will ordinarily establish the risk.

The narrow channel rules do not override the crossing rules merely because an approaching vessel intends and is preparing to enter the channel. They override them only when that vessel is on her final approach and shaping her course to enter on the starboard side. A stand-on vessel may adjust her navigation to comply with another applicable rule without losing her status.

EVER SMART, a container vessel leaving the narrow entrance channel to Jebel Ali, collided with ALEXANDRA 1, a laden tanker moving slowly in the pilot boarding area while waiting to embark a pilot before entering the channel. The vessels had approached on an appreciably unchanging bearing for approximately 23 minutes.

Teare J held that the crossing rules did not apply because the narrow channel rules governed the situation and ALEXANDRA 1 was not on a sufficiently defined course. He apportioned liability 80% to EVER SMART and 20% to ALEXANDRA 1: [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty). The Court of Appeal upheld those conclusions: [2018] EWCA Civ 2173.

The Supreme Court considered whether a give-way vessel must be on a steady course and when the narrow channel rules override the crossing rules.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The crossing rules applied throughout the relevant period. ALEXANDRA 1 was the give-way vessel and EVER SMART the stand-on vessel. The possible effect on apportionment was remitted to the Admiralty Court.
2. Rules 15–17 lie at the heart of the collision-avoidance scheme. Where two power-driven vessels moving over the ground are neither head-on nor overtaking, and are crossing on an appreciably unchanging compass bearing while approaching each other, rule 7(d)(i) deems a risk of collision to exist. Rule 15 contains no additional requirement that either vessel must be on a steady course. The decisive consideration is whether the crossing situation is reasonably apparent to those navigating both vessels: paras [77]–[85], [98], [111]–[115].
3. A vessel is not removed from the crossing rules merely because she is moving slowly, following an erratic course, or waiting for a pilot or permission to enter a channel. The rules may be inapplicable where restricted visibility or irregular movement prevents the other vessel from reasonably ascertaining that a crossing situation exists. On the facts, both vessels were visible, moving over the ground and approaching on readily observable steady bearings: paras [98], [109]–[115].
4. The stand-on vessel's duty under rule 17 to keep course and speed is a qualified obligation arising after the relevant steering rule is engaged. It does not require exact maintenance of momentary heading, course or speed. The vessel may continue an apparent navigational manoeuvre and comply with another applicable rule, including rule 9(a), while enabling the give-way vessel to keep clear: paras [61]–[64], [69], [112].
5. The narrow channel rule excludes the crossing rules when vessels proceed in opposite directions along the same channel. It may also do so when an entering vessel is on her final approach and is already shaping and adjusting her course to arrive at the entrance on its starboard side. It does not exclude the crossing rules merely because an approaching vessel intends and is preparing to enter, or is waiting in a pilot boarding area: paras [116]–[145].
6. Rule 2 does not justify wholesale disapplication of another rule. Compliance with the rules is a first principle of good seamanship. Rule 2(b) permits only a limited departure where necessity to avoid immediate danger is clearly established: paras [65]–[70].

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Allowed the appeal unanimously on both questions of construction and remitted any necessary reconsideration of apportionment to the Admiralty Court: [2021] UKSC 6.
2. Court of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusion that the narrow channel rules excluded the crossing rules and that ALEXANDRA 1 was not on a sufficiently defined course: [2018] EWCA Civ 2173; [2019] 1 All ER (Comm) 303.
3. High Court, Admiralty Court: Teare J held that the crossing rules did not apply and apportioned liability 80% to EVER SMART and 20% to ALEXANDRA 1: [2017] EWHC 453 (Admlty); [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 666.