Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

Summary and Facts

The case The Kiran Australia v Belpareil [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323 examines a collision between two vessels, the Kiran Australia and Belpareil. The collision resulted from Belpareil’s anchor dragging, which led to a loss of control over its movements and ultimately a collision with Kiran Australia. The court evaluated each party’s liability, apportioning fault based on the actions and omissions of each vessel.

Key Issues

  1. Negligence Due to Dragging Anchor: Was Belpareil negligent because its anchor dragged?
  2. Timely Warnings and Response: Did Belpareil fail to issue timely warnings and respond adequately?
  3. Apportionment of Fault: Should fault be weighted in favor of Kiran Australia despite its limited evasive actions?

Court’s Findings

  • The court found Belpareil primarily at fault for failing to rebut the presumption of negligence associated with dragging anchor. Maritime law often presumes negligence when a vessel’s anchor drags unless unavoidable circumstances can be demonstrated, which Belpareil could not establish.
  • Belpareil also failed to meet its duty to issue prompt warnings to Kiran Australia or to seek tug assistance quickly. These delays substantially contributed to the collision and affected the court’s apportionment of liability.
  • Although Kiran Australia did attempt evasive action, its limited response was hampered by Belpareil’s delays and lack of communication. The court assigned 70% of the fault to Belpareil and 30% to Kiran Australia, placing greater responsibility on the vessel that failed to manage the potential hazard.
  • Kiran Australia was apportioned 30% of the fault because it had a duty to take reasonable evasive action. Despite its attempts to avoid the collision, the court found that these measures were insufficient.

Practical Implications

  • This case highlights the stringent standards of vigilance and communication expected to prevent maritime collisions.
  • Vessel operators should prioritize actively monitoring anchor stability, especially in challenging weather or currents, as failure to do so can result in a presumption of negligence and increased liability.
  • The ruling underscores the need for timely communication with nearby vessels and immediate action, such as engaging tug assistance when needed.
  • Vessel owners must ensure clear protocols for managing anchor dragging and train crews to prioritize swift communication in emergency situations.

Conclusion

This case underscores vessels’ responsibilities in managing anchor dragging risks and highlights the critical role of timely communication to minimize collision risks.

Recent Post

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

REGULATIONS – GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE (GATT 1947 ) – ARTICLE I

This legal update explores key provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947), focusing on Article I (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), Article II (Schedules of Concessions), Article XX (General Exceptions), and Article XXI (Security Exceptions). Article I mandates that any trade advantage granted by one contracting party to another must be extended unconditionally to all other parties. Article II ensures that imported goods from contracting parties receive treatment no less favourable than that outlined in agreed schedules, while also regulating permissible taxes and charges. Articles XX and XXI provide exceptions for measures necessary to protect public morals, health, security interests, and compliance with domestic laws. The provisions reflect the foundational principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and fair trade, while allowing for limited, well-defined exceptions. This summary is intended to provide a concise reference for businesses and legal practitioners involved in international trade law.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us