WILFORCE LLC & Anor v RATU SHIPPING CO.SA & Anor

In a collision within or near a precautionary area, liability depends on causative potency and blameworthiness, assessed by reference to the vessels’ actual navigation and the applicable collision rules and local recommendations.

A vessel must proceed at a safe speed and in a state of maximum manoeuvring readiness where required. An unsafe speed before the risk of collision arises may remain causative if it later inhibits effective manoeuvring or increases the damage. A vessel navigating in a precautionary area must maintain a proper lookout and follow applicable routeing recommendations. Where a crossing situation is created by the putative stand-on vessel, it may be unnecessary to resolve whether the crossing rules technically apply if good seamanship would require the same action in either event.

The claim arose from a collision on 31 May 2019 in a precautionary area of the Singapore Straits Traffic Separation Scheme between the LNG tanker WILFORCE and the bulk carrier WESTERN MOSCOW. The claimants were the owners and demise charterers of WILFORCE. The defendants were the owners and demise charterers of WESTERN MOSCOW.

The court considered the navigation of both vessels, including lookout, speed, course alterations, use of VHF, navigation lights and sound signals. It also considered the effect of the Collision Regulations, local Singapore rules and recommendations for navigating precautionary areas. The principal issues were causation, the application or possible application of the crossing rules, the vessels’ respective blameworthiness and the appropriate apportionment of liability.

1. WESTERN MOSCOW’s faults. WESTERN MOSCOW had a very poor lookout. From about C-7 she continued turning to port towards WILFORCE, maintaining a substantially constant bearing, and failed to appreciate or heed WILFORCE’s presence until about C-3. She failed to follow the recommended course for crossing the precautionary area and failed to apply hard starboard helm in time to give effect to the agreed port-to-port passing. Her additional deck lights breached Rule 20(b) of the Collision Regulations and her failure to sound two short blasts breached Rule 34, but neither breach was causative.
2. WILFORCE’s faults. WILFORCE breached the local requirement to proceed in a maximum state of manoeuvring readiness and Rule 6 of the Collision Regulations by proceeding at an unsafe speed. Although there was no risk of collision before about C-7, the excessive speed inhibited her ability to reduce speed when the risk arose and materially increased the collision damage. She appreciated the risk by C-6 and ought to have reduced speed substantially by C-5. Her later starboard alteration was as great as could reasonably be made having regard to the tug and tow.
3. Crossing rules. The court considered whether the crossing rules applied where the putative stand-on vessel had created the crossing situation by her own alteration of course. The authorities disclosed competing approaches. The Supreme Court’s guidance in Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd. v Nautical Challenge Ltd. indicated that the crossing rules should not lightly be treated as inapplicable and that the duty to keep course may be moulded to permit compliance with another applicable rule. It was unnecessary to decide the issue because the action required of WILFORCE as a matter of good seamanship was the same as that required if she were the give-way vessel: reducing speed by C-5 and turning to starboard when safe.
4. WESTERN MOSCOW’s stand-on duty. Even if the crossing rules applied, WESTERN MOSCOW should have steadied on approximately 350 degrees, consistent with the important recommendation for crossing the precautionary area. If that analysis were wrong, the circumstances justified departure from the crossing rule under rule 2(b) to avoid immediate danger.
5. Apportionment. WESTERN MOSCOW’s poor lookout and resulting navigation had the greater causative potency and blameworthiness. WILFORCE’s unsafe speed nevertheless materially contributed to both the occurrence and the damage. Liability was apportioned 75% to WESTERN MOSCOW and 25% to WILFORCE.