Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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

1. Summary and Facts:

The case FMG Hong Kong Shipping Ltd v The Owners of MSC Apollo (The BBC Nile) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322 relates to a collision between the bulk carrier FMG Sydney and the container ship MSC Apollo on 29 August 2020 in the approaches to Tianjin, China. The collision occurred in good visibility, light winds, and slight seas. Both vessels were in ballast. The Sydney was outbound, heading east, while the Apollo was inbound, heading west.

The Apollo suggested crossing starboard-to-starboard via VHF, while the Sydney altered its course to starboard, and the Apollo turned to port, leading to a collision. The Sydney’s port bow struck the Apollo’s starboard side at a 40-degree angle. The dispute revolved around the application of the Collision Regulations (“COLREGS”), specifically Rules 14, 15, 16, and 17.

2. Legal issues:

i. Whether Rule 14 (head-on situations) or Rules 15 and 16 (crossing situations) applied?
ii. Whether the Apollo, as the give-way vessel, complied with its duty to take early and substantial action to avoid a collision?
iii. Whether the Apollo’s use of VHF to propose navigation contrary to the Collision Regulations was justifiable?
iv. Whether the Sydney’s actions contributed to the collision?

3. Court Findings:

  • The court found that the vessels were in a crossing situation at C-12, with Sydney on Apollo’s starboard bow, obligating Apollo to take early and substantial action to avoid the Sydney under Rule 15. Apollo failed to do so, making it solely responsible for the collision.
  • Apollo breached Rule 15 by not taking early and substantial action.
  • Its successive course alterations to port between C-12 and C-6 contravened the obligation to avoid crossing ahead of Sydney.
  • The court rejected the Apollo’s argument that the vessels were in a head-on situation under Rule 14, as their courses were not reciprocal or nearly reciprocal.
  • The Apollo’s reliance on VHF to suggest a starboard-to-starboard passing was not justified. The court emphasized that VHF communications should not be used to navigate contrary to the COLREGS unless in exceptional circumstances, which were absent in this case.
  • The Sydney acted appropriately under Rule 17(a)(ii) by taking action to avoid collision after Apollo failed to comply with its obligations.

4. Practical Implications:

This case serves as a reminder that ships must follow navigation rules to avoid collisions. If you’re the vessel that needs to give way, take clear and early action to avoid the other ship. Don’t rely on radio communication to make alternative arrangements unless it’s absolutely necessary and doesn’t break the rules. Simply put, stick to the established rules to ensure everyone’s safety.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们