Denver Maritime Limited v Belpareil AS

In a collision between anchored vessels, dragging an anchor is prima facie evidence of negligence. The vessel must explain the dragging by proving that it was not caused by negligence or could not have been prevented by reasonable skill and care. A difficult anchorage or the dragging of another vessel does not automatically rebut that inference.

Effective causation is not determined by a last-opportunity approach. Earlier faults remain causative where they create and maintain the perilous situation in which later navigational errors occur. In apportioning responsibility, the court assesses blameworthiness and causative potency, giving particular weight to faults that created the dangerous situation. A vessel cannot rely on the agony-of-the-moment principle where its own prior negligence created the emergency.

The claim arose from a collision in the Bay of Bengal between the anchored bulk carriers Belpareil and Kiran Australia. Belpareil had dragged her anchor and experienced unreliable main-engine performance while the vessels manoeuvred to avoid contact.

The court determined allegations concerning Belpareil’s dragging, delayed warnings, delayed request for tugs, failure to deploy a second anchor, and final manoeuvring. It also considered Kiran Australia’s conduct during the final minutes, including reducing engine speed and allowing herself to fall astern and to starboard. The central issues were fault, causation and apportionment under Merchant Shipping Act 1995, section 187.

1. Outcome. Both vessels were at fault. Liability for the collision was apportioned 70% to Belpareil and 30% to Kiran Australia.
2. Dragging anchor. The court held, following the combined effect of The Exeter City and Sea Serpent and The Brabant, that dragging an anchor is prima facie evidence of negligence. The inference may be rebutted by proving why the vessel dragged and showing that the cause was not negligence, or by proving that reasonable skill and care could not have prevented the dragging. The Boltenhof did not establish a general rule that severe weather or the dragging of other vessels automatically rebuts the inference. Belpareil failed to rebut it.
3. Earlier faults. Belpareil was negligent in failing by about 23:40 hrs to warn nearby shipping that she was dragging and unable properly to control the situation. She was also negligent in failing to call for tug assistance by that time, although that failure was not causative. She was further negligent in failing to deploy her starboard anchor by about 00:05 hrs. Each of the dragging, warning and second-anchor failures was an effective cause of the collision.
4. Final manoeuvring. Kiran Australia was negligent in allowing herself to fall astern and to starboard from about C-3 and in maintaining that course despite the evident collision risk. Belpareil was negligent in maintaining Full Ahead after about C-2, when it should have been apparent that the vessels were closing on a collision course. Neither vessel could rely on the agony-of-the-moment or horns-of-a-dilemma principles. Belpareil’s prior negligence had created the perilous situation.
5. Causation and apportionment. The collision was a single, continuous episode. The court rejected a last-opportunity analysis and treated the earlier and later faults as operating together. Belpareil’s initial faults were more numerous and more blameworthy, although Kiran Australia was distinctly more blameworthy in the final manoeuvring. The resulting apportionment under section 187 was 70:30.