The “Ever Smart” and “Alexandra 1”: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Collision Regulations

10 May 2022

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 6—the first collision case to reach the Supreme Court—has brought long-awaited clarity to the relationship between the crossing rules and the narrow channel rule under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (the “ColRegs”). The subsequent remittal to the Admiralty Court, determined earlier this year in [2022] EWHC 206 (Admlty), has now concluded the apportionment of liability. The case is of the first importance for all those involved in collision claims and the navigation of vessels in and around narrow channels and port approaches.

The Facts

On 11 February 2015, the container vessel Ever Smart and the laden VLCC Alexandra 1 collided just outside the dredged approach channel to the port of Jebel Ali in the UAE. The Alexandra 1 was outbound, having left the channel and entered open water, while the Ever Smart was inbound, shaping to enter the channel. The collision caused significant damage to both vessels.

The central question is whether the encounter is governed by the crossing rules (Rules 15 to 17) or the narrow channel rule (Rule 9), and which vessel bears the greater responsibility.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court identifies three categories of vessel relevant to the interplay between the crossing and narrow channel rules. First, vessels crossing the entrance to a channel but not intending to use it, to which the crossing rules clearly apply. Second, vessels on their final approach to a channel, actively shaping to enter, to which the narrow channel rule applies. Third, vessels intending to use the channel but still in a preparatory phase, waiting or manoeuvring before entry, where the crossing rules remain applicable.

Critically, the court holds that neither the give-way vessel nor the stand-on vessel needs to be on a steady course for the crossing rules to apply. The relevant criterion is whether the vessels are on steady bearings; if they are, and the situation is neither head-on nor overtaking, the crossing rules will govern.

The Supreme Court finds that the Alexandra 1 is the give-way vessel under the crossing rules and that her navigation is at fault. The Ever Smart, while subject to both the crossing rule (as stand-on vessel) and the narrow channel rule, is also found at fault for failing to take adequate avoiding action.

Apportionment

Following remittal to the Admiralty Court, the judge has revised the apportionment of liability to 70 per cent against the Ever Smart and 30 per cent against the Alexandra 1. The revised apportionment reflects the court’s assessment of the relative causative potency and blameworthiness of each vessel’s faults, applying the well-established principles set out in The Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Vessel Tojo Maru v NV Bureau Wijsmuller (The Tojo Maru) [1972] AC 242.

Significance

The decision provides welcome clarity on a question that has troubled navigators, lawyers, and courts for decades. The distinction between the three categories of vessel—crossing, shaping to enter, and waiting to enter—offers a practical framework for applying the ColRegs at the often-congested approaches to ports and narrow channels.

The case is also a reminder of the enduring importance of the Admiralty Court and the specialist maritime judiciary in developing the law on collision. Practitioners advising on collision claims, and mariners navigating busy port approaches, will wish to study this decision closely.