MV Pacific Pearl Co Limited v NYK Orpheus Corp & Anor

In a collision case involving three ships, liability depends on good seamanship assessed against all the circumstances existing at the time. A ship must take reasonable precautions against foreseeable navigational risks, including securing herself as safely as practicable when circumstances change. Ships navigating in confined waters should approach and conduct a close pass at a settled minimum safe speed, maintain an effective lookout, and be ready to take immediate avoiding action. A vessel that becomes endangered must raise a clear and urgent alarm. Under Merchant Shipping Act 1995, section 187, apportionment requires a broad, commonsensical and qualitative assessment of culpability and causative potency, comparing each vessel separately with the others.

The claims arose from the collision between the moored bulk carrier Panamax Alexander and the container ship NYK Orpheus in the Suez Canal on 16 July 2018. NYK Falcon, which had passed Alexander shortly beforehand, was also alleged to have caused or contributed to the casualty through the hydrodynamic forces generated by its passage.

The consolidated Admiralty claims required determination of liability and apportionment between the three ships. A further issue concerned whether Alexander could technically have completed her laden voyage after the previous day’s collision without discharging cargo or dry-docking. The central questions were whether Alexander was adequately secured and warned the convoy, whether Falcon and Orpheus navigated at safe speeds and with proper separation, and whether Orpheus responded adequately to Alexander’s movement.

1. Liability. All three ships were at fault. Alexander was negligently left with an inadequate six-line mooring after it became known that two convoys would pass, and the attending tugs were not used proactively. She also failed to raise any clear and urgent alarm when her stern lines parted and she began swinging into the channel.
2. Falcon. Falcon should have approached and passed Alexander at a settled minimum safe speed of no more than about 6 knots through the water by 0.5 nautical miles off. Arriving at more than 7 knots while still decelerating was negligent. Her later increase in engine power and alteration of heading were responses to bank effect and were not themselves negligent.
3. Orpheus. Orpheus approached at excessive speed, reduced her separation from Falcon, failed to keep a proper lookout, and failed to take immediate decisive action when Alexander’s danger should have been apparent. She should have gone immediately to Crash Astern and, in the circumstances, had her anchors ready for emergency use. Article 59(7) of the SCA Rules did not impose an absolute duty to run aground, and Orpheus was not liable merely because she did not do so.
4. Apportionment. Applying section 187 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the court assessed the nature and quality of the faults, their causative potency, and their relative blameworthiness. Responsibility was apportioned Alexander 5, Orpheus 5 and Falcon 2. The additional issue was answered affirmatively: sufficient temporary repairs could technically have been undertaken afloat, and Alexander could have completed the laden voyage under tow.