Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Limited

Rule 14(b) of the Collision Regulations does not impose fixed 3° or 6° geometric limits derived from the technical lighting provisions. The expressions “nearly ahead” and “nearly in a line” retain their ordinary, fact-sensitive meaning. The words “and/or” permit either the masthead-light configuration or both sidelights to engage the head-on rule. Once Rule 14 is engaged, it continues until the risk of collision which triggered it has passed. Subsequent changes during the manoeuvre do not convert the situation into a crossing case.

Two bulk carriers collided off Greece. The High Court, after a three-day trial, attributed 80% responsibility to the owners of KIVELI and 20% to the owners of AFINA I in [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty). The KIVELI owners appealed on issues concerning the interpretation and duration of Rule 14, and alternatively the application of Rules 15 to 17. The central questions were whether Rule 14(b) imposed precise geometric requirements, whether “and/or” required both sidelights to be visible, and whether a head-on situation could later become a crossing situation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected Grounds 1 and 2. Ground 3, and any challenge to the 80:20 apportionment, did not arise.
2. The Collision Regulations are an international convention. They must be interpreted by broad and general principles, including ordinary meaning, context, object and purpose. The rules should operate practically, uniformly and clearly for mariners. Supplementary material may be used under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 to confirm meaning without requiring a definite legislative intention. The approach in Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd v Nautical Challenge Ltd (The Ever Smart) and JTI Polska sp z oo v Jakubowski was applied.
3. Rule 14(b) contains no fixed 3° test for “nearly ahead” and no fixed 6° arc for “nearly in a line”. Annex I paragraph 9’s lighting cut-off provisions do not supply such geometric limits. The Judge’s evaluative application of Rule 14(b) was not independently open to challenge.
4. The ordinary meaning of “and/or” is disjunctive. Rule 14(b) is engaged where the observing vessel sees either the other vessel’s masthead lights in line or nearly in line, both sidelights, or both configurations. The rule is not confined to a period before sidelights become visible. Acacia Ver Navigation Co Ltd v Kezia Ltd (MV Omnia) supported that construction.
5. Once Rule 14 is engaged, it remains applicable until the risk of collision which brought it into operation has passed. Rules 14 and 8 contemplate the continuing manoeuvre and safe passing. A subsequent change in bearing or course does not itself create a crossing situation. Orduna v The Shipping Controller and Gulfcoast Transit Company v MT Anco Princess et al supported that conclusion.

The broader definitional and “A vessel” issues were left for a case in which they were determinative. Coulson LJ also gave procedural guidance, expressly agreed by Foxton LJ, that parties appealing in collision cases should identify any challenged assessor opinion and the grounds requiring fresh nautical assessors. That guidance was obiter.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In [2026] EWCA Civ 251, the appeal was dismissed. Grounds 1 and 2 failed; Ground 3 and any challenge to the apportionment did not arise.
2. High Court of Justice, Admiralty Court Mr Justice Bryan held in [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty) that KIVELI was 80% responsible and AFINA I 20% responsible. A related consequentials judgment, [2025] EWHC 1210 (Admlty), refused permission to appeal.