Andrew Arnold v Halcyon Yachts Limited

A professional yacht-delivery company is not liable where the voyage was planned and executed with reasonable care and skill. A reasonable route may be selected even if another route might have avoided adverse conditions, provided the route is properly planned and executed.

Where a professional crew turns back because multiple defects cumulatively create serious safety concerns, the decision may fall within the skipper’s contractual safety discretion. Damage sustained in conditions within the vessel’s capabilities may be attributed to manufacturing or production defects rather than negligent navigation. The court must assess the cumulative effect of defects and the circumstances confronting the crew at sea.

The claimant engaged Halcyon Yachts Limited to deliver a new catamaran from France to the United States. The vessel travelled from La Rochelle to the Azores and then turned back towards Horta after the crew identified a series of defects and lost confidence in the vessel.

The claimant alleged that Halcyon had negligently selected and executed the northern route, failed to use adequate weather routing, sailed into a storm, and caused damage to the vessel. He claimed delivery, repair and delay costs. Halcyon denied liability and counterclaimed for unpaid expenses and subsistence sums.

The central issues were whether the voyage was planned or executed negligently, whether the crew’s decision to return was justified, whether the damage resulted from negligent handling or manufacturing defects, and whether the claimant had committed a repudiatory breach.

1. The claim was dismissed and the counterclaim succeeded. Halcyon had not committed a repudiatory breach. The court invited counsel to submit a perfected calculation of the sums due under the counterclaim.
2. The northern route was a reasonable choice in November, provided it was properly planned and executed. The evidence showed that the crew had considered relevant weather information, waited for a weather window, and planned to remain south of the developing low-pressure system. The planning therefore complied with the contractual requirements of professional care and attention and the safety of the vessel and crew.
3. The route actually taken was reasonable and seamanlike. The vessel had not sailed into a storm before turning back. The conditions were generally moderate and within the vessel’s warranted capabilities. The crew had access to updated weather information, and the decision to alter course was not shown to have resulted from panic or inadequate information.
4. The crew’s decision to return to the Azores was justified. The relevant consideration was the cumulative effect of multiple failures, including water ingress, electrical and equipment concerns, movement of joinery, and rigging defects. Although individual defects might not have been critical, their combination reasonably created serious safety concerns. The decision fell within the skipper’s contractual discretion to deviate or terminate in the interests of the vessel or crew.
5. The damage was predominantly caused by manufacturing or production defects. The weather encountered was within the vessel’s design capability, and the evidence supported deficiencies in adhesive, fastening and fitting-out. The minor mooring damage was caused by unforeseeable pontoon movement and amounted to fair wear and tear. There was no breach of the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill.
6. The court noted that it was uncertain whether the statutory duty under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, or the materially identical duty under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, could be qualified by the Bolam test. The issue did not affect the outcome and was left open.