SHIP AHEAD, BUT IS IT HEAD-ON?

Important new collision decision on Rules 14 & 15 of the COLREGS 

KIVELI c/w AFINA I – Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admiralty) 

Shortly before sunrise on 13 March 2021, two bulk carriers, the Maltese-registered AFINA I and the Liberian flagged KIVELI, both underway in open water, with good weather and visibility, collided off the South coast of Greece. KIVELI became dramatically embedded in AFINA I, as the photo below illustrates; it was 20 days before they were separated. Over 4 years later, Mr Justice Bryan, sitting in the Admiralty Court with Commodore Robert W. Dorey as Nautical Assessor, has today handed down a lengthy and detailed judgment on intership liability, addressing in particular the application of, and interplay between, Rules 14 and 15 of the Collision Regulations, finding that KIVELI was 80% responsible for the collision, whilst AFINA I was 20% liable. 

MFB, together with Tatham & Co, represented AFINA I. Nigel Cooper KC of Quadrant Chambers appeared as Counsel. 

The Facts 

KIVELI, carrying a cargo of rock phosphate, was Eastbound from Morocco to Bulgaria, whilst AFINA I, heading West from Novorossiysk to Bilbao, was laden with a cargo of hot briquetted iron. 

The immediate cause of the collision, at 06:01 local time, was the KIVELI turning hard to port, her bow striking AFINA I on her midship, portside, at an angle of approximately 90°. It was shown in ‘what-if’ diagrams, annexed to the judgment, that if KIVELI had maintained her course or turned to starboard, the vessels would have passed close to each other but would not have collided. For this reason, AFINA I submitted that KIVELI was substantially responsible for the collision. 

The critical events leading to the collision play out from C-22 (i.e. 22 minutes before the collision), at which time the vessels’ headings were 7° off reciprocal, the range between the vessels over 8.6nm, with each vessel proceeding at just under 12 knots, and with a Closest Point of Approach (CPA) of 0.213nm. Shortly after this time, KIVELI made the first of two minor alterations to port (described in the Judgment as “nibbling to port”), intended to increase the passing distance with AFINA I and another vessel directly ahead of her. 

AFINA I, judging it to be in a head-on situation, with the vessels shaping to pass green to green with a CPA of only 0.26nm, began turning to starboard (at C-5). Despite this being noticed by KIVELI, she took no action (the bridge microphones captured the Chief Officer singing and humming in the minutes leading up to the collision). 

Alarmed at this inaction, AFINA I called KIVELI on VHF to alert her. Moments before the collision KIVELI’s Chief Officer responded on VHF that he was, inexplicably, altering course to port, towards the danger. AFINA I immediately replied: “No port side, no port side. Okay? Okay? No port side”, but too late – the next sound on the bridge microphones was the crash as the vessels collided. 

The Decision 

The principal question for the Court was which Rule of the 1972 Collision Regulations applied: Rule 14 (the “Head-on Rule”) or 15 (the “Crossing Rule”) (these Rules are reproduced at the end of this article). AFINA I said the former, KIVELI the latter. 

KIVELI’s position was that her watchkeeper could only ever see one of AFINA I’s sidelights, and consequently 

submitted that it could not be a head-on situation, but was instead a crossing situation, with AFINA I as the give-way vessel. In turning to starboard at C-6, KIVELI submitted, AFINA I contravened the Rules, and created the danger. 

The Judge agreed with AFINA I that the vessels were in a head-on situation, with a risk of collision, from C-22. In coming to this conclusion, he found, contrary to KIVELI’s submissions, that: 

(i) Rule 14(b) is (only) a deeming provision, intended to assist a vessel in deciding whether it is a 

head-on situation, it does not define when Rule 14 applies, or the limit of “reciprocal or nearly reciprocal” (wording in Rule 14(a)); 

(ii) Rule 14(b) does not require that, by night, a vessel sees the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line as well as both sidelights – 14(b) is satisfied if a vessel (1) sees the other vessel’s masthead lights in, or nearly in, a line; (2) sees both sidelights; or (3) sees the masthead lights in a line or nearly in a line and both sidelights. 

(iii) It is not necessary for Rule 14(b) to be satisfied by both vessels. On this point the Judge was swayed by the fact that one vessel cannot know what the other vessel will see of it. 

As to the limit of “nearly reciprocal” for the purposes of Rule 14(a), Bryan J found that a difference of up to 6° or slightly more would suffice. In any event, given the terms of Rule 14(c), a vessel should assume a head-on situation exists if there is any doubt (a point which the Judge repeated). 

In the circumstances prevailing at C-22, the risk of collision was appreciable by application of Rule 7(d)(i) (“such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change”), and with the CPA being less than a reasonably competent mariner would consider a safe passing distance, the vessels being in sight of each other (by radar and visually), meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses, and with each vessel being able to see the other ahead or nearly ahead and the masthead lights in line or nearly in line. The risk of collision existed regardless of what sidelights could be seen by either vessel. In any event, Rule 7(a) states that if there is any doubt as to whether a risk of collision exists it shall be deemed to exist. 

The Judge further held that even if it was a crossing situation (with KIVELI as the stand-on vessel), KIVELI failed to abide by Rule 15 in that she should not have “nibbled” to port, should have altered course to starboard (under Rule 17(a)(ii)) and, critically, should not have turned to port at C-1. 

KIVELI’s suggestion that the Chief Officer found himself in “the horns of a dilemma” due to AFINA I’s alteration to starboard was also rejected. Not only did the Judge find AFINA I’s action was in keeping with the Collision Regulations (albeit taken late), but KIVELI had noticed the alteration at C-5, should have taken action sooner, and even then, at C-1 there was only one clearly right option, namely to turn to starboard (and not to port). 

In this respect, and in response to KIVELI’s suggestion that even if the vessels were in a head-on situation at some point, they were not at C-6 (i.e. immediately prior to AFINA I commencing her turn to starboard), the Judge commented that (i) once Rule 14 applies it continues to apply thereafter unless and until the risk of collision has ceased, and is not affected by subsequent changes of course; and (ii) as Rule 14 takes precedence over Rule 15, once Rule 14 applies there cannot be a crossing situation. 

A submission by KIVELI that AFINA I was in breach of sailing directions relating to the passage of a nearby Strait was given short shrift by the Judge, who held that the directions were advisory, not mandatory, and were not applicable as the vessels were not in the Strait at the time of the collision. In any event, any non-compliance by AFINA I was of no causative effect on KIVELI’s navigation leading up to the collision. 

Conclusion and Apportionment 

The Judge found that failings in navigation and seamanship on the part of the KIVELI’s Chief Officer were the root cause of the collision. It was doubtless unhelpful to KIVELI’s position that, in cross-examination, KIVELI’s Chief Officer admitted that he was willing not to follow the Collision Regulations if he felt it appropriate, and was prepared to pass 

both AFINA I and the vessel ahead of her starboard to starboard at a distance of 200-300 metres, even though he acknowledged it was “not a safe passing distance”. 

KIVELI was found negligent in failing to treat it as a head-on situation, failing to observe AFINA I visually or keep any good lookout, inappropriately “nibbling to port”, failing to turn to starboard (particularly when he observed AFINA I commencing her alterations of course to starboard) and grossly negligent in catastrophically turning to port at C-1. When contrasted with AFINA I’s lesser failings, notably turning to starboard late, the Judge assessed KIVELI’s fault was 4 times as great as that of AFINA I, such that liability was apportioned 80% to KIVELI, 20% to AFINA I. 

Comment 

In this era of navigational aids, data recorders, and incentives to settle out of Court, relatively few collision judgments appear on our desks. Those that do tend to involve some novel or unusual issue. In this case the primary dispute was whether there could be a head-on situation even though, at night, one or both vessels cannot see both sidelights of the other (for example when outside the range of sidelights). From this followed detailed examination of the vessels’ navigation, and voyage data. In a thorough analysis of Rule 14 and 15 of the Collision Regulations in particular, Mr Justice Bryan, drawing on the expertise of Commodore Dorey, has now put this issue to bed in what will surely stand as a seminal decision on the topic, bringing welcome clarity to mariners and wet practitioners. 

The full judgment is available here. 

Collision Regulations 

Rule 14 – Head-on situation 

(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. 

(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she would see the mast head lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel. 

(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly. 

Rule 15 – Crossing situation 

When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel. 

MFB Solicitors 16 May 2025