FMG Hong Kong Shipping Limited, the Demise Charterers of Fmg Sydney V The Owners of the MSC Apollo

The crossing rules apply when vessels are crossing so as to involve a risk of collision. Their application does not depend on whether the give-way vessel is set to cross ahead or astern. A give-way vessel must take early and substantial action to keep well clear, and should avoid crossing ahead where the circumstances permit. The crossing rules should be strictly enforced. Agreement by VHF to navigate contrary to those rules is justified only in exceptional circumstances. A head-on situation requires both vessels to be meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses; it is insufficient that only one vessel sees both sidelights of the other. A stand-on vessel may take action under Rule 17 where the give-way vessel is not complying, provided the action is appropriate in the circumstances. On the facts, the give-way vessel was solely responsible for the collision.

Two vessels collided in the approaches to Tianjin, China. FMG Sydney, an outbound ore carrier, and MSC Apollo, an inbound container ship, were both in ballast. Each vessel suffered damage and security was exchanged.

The claimant alleged that Apollo was the give-way vessel under the Collision Regulations and had failed to take early and substantial action. The defendant alleged that the crossing rules applied only later, that Sydney was proceeding at an unsafe speed, and that Sydney’s alterations to starboard caused the collision. The central issues were when the crossing rules applied, whether Apollo complied with them, whether Sydney was at fault as the stand-on vessel, and whether any such fault was causative.

1. Application of the crossing rule. The vessels were crossing so as to involve a risk of collision from about C-12. The crossing rules applied because the predicted closest point of approach was below the minimum safe distance identified by the Assessors. Their application did not depend on Apollo being set to cross ahead of Sydney. Apollo was therefore required to take early and substantial action under Rules 15 and 16.
2. Apollo’s navigation. The latest time by which Apollo could have taken early and substantial action was C-7. It should then have made a substantial alteration to starboard or substantially reduced speed, and maintained the resulting course until safely clear. Instead, it made successive alterations to port, sought to cross ahead of Sydney, and used VHF to seek passing arrangements inconsistent with the Collision Regulations. No exceptional circumstances justified that use of VHF. Apollo was in breach of Rules 15 and 16.
3. Head-on argument. Rule 14 did not apply. A head-on situation requires vessels to be meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses, and the visual test in Rule 14(b) must be satisfied by both vessels when Rules 14(a) and 14(b) are read together. Sydney’s ability to see both sidelights of Apollo was insufficient.
4. Sydney’s alleged fault. Sydney was not proceeding at an unsafe speed. The increase in speed resulted from a visible manoeuvre, while her engines remained at full-ahead manoeuvring. The duty to keep speed does not require maintenance of a precise speed. Sydney’s progressive alterations to starboard under Rule 17(a)(ii) were justified by the uncertainty created by Apollo’s navigation and the surrounding traffic. Shortly before collision, hard starboard was the only appropriate action under Rule 17(b), having regard also to Rule 17(c).
5. Disposition. Apollo’s failure to keep well clear caused the close-quarters situation and collision. Sydney was not guilty of causative fault. Apollo was held solely responsible for the damage caused by the collision.