Panamax Alexander (“PA”) was moored in a narrow part of the Suez Canal awaiting repairs/towage following a collision the previous day. NYK Falcon (“F”) and NYK Orpheus (“O”) passed by PA as part of a convoy. After F cleared PA the latter’s stern ropes parted and she swung into the channel. O collided with her. In consolidated proceedings the Court found F “clumsy” in the passing manoeuvre but greater blame lay with PA’s poor mooring and reaction and O’s excessive speed. PA and O were more than doubly to blame. Pa and O were ordered to pay 5/12 of the other damages and F 1/6 of PA’s.

The MSC Flaminia suffered a cargo fire and explosion (originating in laden containers) causing, sadly, loss of life and personal injury and giving rise to numerous claims including for cargo damage. Time Charterers (MSC) sought to limit their liability viz a viz Owners for damage to the Vessel, pursuant to Art.2.1 of the Amended 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability: “Claims in respect of … loss or damage to property…occurring on board….and consequential loss”. MSC argued that Vessel damage was “consequential loss” flowing from cargo damage thus entitling them to limit under Art. 2.1. The Court disagreed: Owners’ claim was for Vessel damage, not cargo damage. MSC were solely time charterers, not cargo owners. Owners’ claim was not, therefore, limitable.

After crossing in front of “ Wilforce” ( sailing east), “Western Moscow” turned to port (west) in order to join the westbound channel of the Singaporean Strait Traffic Scheme, and informed “Wilforce” they would “pass port to port”. A collision nevertheless ensued. “Western Moscow’s failure to sound/display appropriate signals, although in breach of COLREGs, was held non-causative. Rather, its poor lookout, “especially striking” when turning westwards where eastbound traffic was expected, caused its failure to “pass port to port”. However, “Wilforce”, in breach of local rules stipulating “maximum manoeuvring readiness”, had failed to reduce speed when collision risk was appreciated. The Court found “Western Moscow” 3 x more to blame and liability was apportioned 75%/25%.

Following a deadly fire caused by dangerous cargo, the Tribunal issued a series of Awards, finding Time Charterers MSC liable to Owners, albeit not finding them negligent. MSC sought to limit liability under MSA 1995 (the Amended 1976 Convention). Owners challenged the right to limit, relying, inter alia, on Art.4 (excluding losses resulting “from [MSC’s] …act or omission, committed… recklessly”), arguing the Tribunal’s finding of no negligence obiter. The Court disagreed, ruling that the finding formed part of the final relief given by the Tribunal. Art.4 was not available to Owners and MSC could limit.

Overturning the decisions of the courts below, the SC held the crossing rule (vessel with the other on her starboard side gives way) was applicable to the Alexandra I while approaching channel/awaiting pilot and sent the matter back to the High Court for collision damage to be re-apportioned. It found that Alexandra I had failed to give way. However, the consequences of the failure were avoidable had it not been for the Ever Smart’s own “gross” fault of having no lookout, despite warning by pilot, and breach of the narrow channel rule. Damage was apportioned 70:30 in favour of Alexandra I.

After MSC Opera ran into River Countess in Venice, Demise Charterers (MSC) accepted responsibility, conceding that Italian law governed recoverability. However, they challenged both title to sue of River Countess’ Charterers and recoverability of their pure economic losses. Relying on Italian law experts, the Court held that Charterers had (in contrast to English law) title to sue in tort and that their net loss of revenue together with ex gratia refunds and payments to passengers were recoverable (subject to proof of causation, unavailability of a substitute vessel and reasonable mitigation of damage to brand/goodwill).