The “Kiveli” and “Afina I”: Head-On or Crossing? The Court of Appeal Decides

2 April 2026

The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal in Monford Management Ltd v Afina Navigation Ltd (The Kiveli and The Afina I) [2026] EWCA Civ, unanimously upholding the Admiralty Court’s judgment in [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty) that the collision between the bulk carriers Kiveli and Afina I off the south coast of Greece was a head-on situation governed by Rule 14 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (the “ColRegs”), and that liability should be apportioned 80 per cent to the Kiveli and 20 per cent to the Afina I. The decision, delivered by Lord Justice Foxton (with whom Lord Justices Coulson and Nugee agreed), provides important guidance on the application of Rule 14 and its relationship with Rule 15 (the crossing rule)—a question that continues to generate difficulty in practice and before the courts.

The Facts

At around 06:01 local time on 13 March 2021, in calm weather and good visibility shortly before sunrise, the Liberian-flagged bulk carrier Kiveli and the Maltese-registered bulk carrier Afina I collided approximately 9.8 nautical miles northwest of the island of Kythira, off the southern coast of Greece. The collision was severe: the bow of the Kiveli became embedded in the port side of the Afina I at an angle of approximately 90 degrees, causing immediate flooding and a serious risk of sinking. On 14 March, both vessels were moved by tugs in their locked condition to Vatika Bay off Elafonisos island, and they were not successfully separated until 28 March—mercifully without environmental pollution.

The Afina I had recently exited the Elafonissos Strait and was maintaining a south-westerly course. The Kiveli was heading north-east towards the Strait. At 05:39, when the vessels were approximately 8.5 nautical miles apart, they were proceeding on near-reciprocal headings with a closest point of approach (CPA) of just 0.213 nautical miles—a figure that clearly indicated a developing risk of collision requiring action by both vessels.

The bridge voice recorder on the Kiveli captured a striking picture of the events leading to the collision. In the minutes before impact, the Kiveli’s chief officer could be heard singing and humming on the bridge, evidently paying little or no attention to the developing situation. As the vessels closed, the Afina I began to alter course to starboard in accordance with her obligations. Moments before the collision, the Kiveli’s chief officer responded on VHF that he was, inexplicably, altering course to port—directly towards the danger. It was this catastrophic turn to port that made the collision inevitable.

The Central Issue: Head-On or Crossing?

The central question at trial and on appeal was whether the encounter between the two vessels was a head-on situation governed by Rule 14 or a crossing situation governed by Rule 15 of the ColRegs. The distinction is of considerable practical importance. Under Rule 14, where two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision, each vessel must alter her course to starboard so that each passes on the port side of the other. Under Rule 15, by contrast, only the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side (the give-way vessel) is required to keep out of the way. The stand-on vessel is required to maintain her course and speed.

The Kiveli’s owners argued that the situation was a crossing encounter under Rule 15, not a head-on situation under Rule 14. Had this characterisation been accepted, the allocation of obligation—and the apportionment of fault—might have been materially different.

The Admiralty Court’s Judgment

Mr Justice Bryan, sitting with Commodore Dorey as Nautical Assessor, held that the encounter was a head-on situation within Rule 14. The judge’s reasoning rested on three principal findings. First, the vessels’ headings were reciprocal or nearly reciprocal, with a divergence of only approximately 7 degrees—well within the range that should be considered “nearly reciprocal” for the purposes of Rule 14. The judge held that a difference of up to 6 degrees, or slightly more, should be treated as nearly reciprocal. Second, at longer ranges, each vessel would likely have seen the other’s masthead lights in a line or nearly so, engaging the deeming provision in Rule 14(b). Third, the extremely small CPA of 0.213 nautical miles indicated a mutual risk that required reciprocal starboard action. The analysis builds on the approach taken by the Supreme Court in Nautical Challenge Ltd v Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd (The Ever Smart) [2021] UKSC 6, which also considered the interplay between different ColReg rules in a port approach context, albeit there in respect of the narrow channel rule.

On fault, the judge found the Kiveli guilty of numerous breaches of the ColRegs. Her chief officer failed to keep a proper lookout (Rule 5), failed to use all available means to determine whether a risk of collision existed (Rule 7), and failed to take early and substantial action to avoid the collision (Rule 8). His turn to port was a gross breach of seamanship and the principal cause of the collision. The Afina I was also found at fault: although she acted in accordance with Rule 14 by altering to starboard, her response was not sufficiently prompt, and she bore a measure of blame for the lateness of her avoiding action.

The court apportioned liability at 80 per cent to the Kiveli and 20 per cent to the Afina I, reflecting the judge’s assessment that the Kiveli’s fault was approximately four times as great as that of the Afina I in both degree and causative potency.

The Court of Appeal

The Kiveli’s owners appealed on the characterisation of the encounter. The Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Coulson, Nugee, and Foxton) heard the appeal on 18 and 19 February 2026 and unanimously dismissed it in a judgment delivered in March 2026. Lord Justice Foxton, delivering the lead judgment, addressed several important points of principle.

First, the court confirmed that Rule 14(b) is a deeming provision: where a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line, and/or either sidelight, the situation shall be deemed to be head-on. The court held that the words “and/or” must be given their ordinary disjunctive meaning—it is not necessary for all the visual conditions to be satisfied simultaneously.

Second, the Court of Appeal held that it is not necessary for the conditions in Rule 14(b) to be simultaneously satisfied by both vessels. The deeming provision may be engaged by the observations of either vessel, and the Rule 14 regime then applies to both.

Third, and of particular practical importance, the court confirmed that once a head-on situation is engaged under Rule 14, it continues to apply until the risk of collision has fully passed. The characterisation of the encounter does not change merely because one vessel’s subsequent manoeuvres create a geometry that might, viewed in isolation, resemble a crossing situation. This is a point of real significance for mariners: the obligation to alter to starboard under Rule 14 persists throughout the encounter, and a vessel cannot escape that obligation by altering course in a manner that changes the relative bearing.

Significance

The decision is important for several reasons. It provides the first detailed appellate consideration of the deeming provision in Rule 14(b), and it clarifies the persistence of the head-on characterisation once engaged—a point on which the authorities had offered little direct guidance. The Court of Appeal’s analysis complements the Supreme Court’s treatment of the ColRegs in The Ever Smart [2021] UKSC 6, and together these decisions offer a substantially clearer framework for the application of Rules 14 and 15 in contested encounters.

For mariners, the case carries stark practical lessons. The Kiveli’s chief officer’s failure to maintain a proper lookout—evidenced by the bridge recordings—and his disastrous decision to turn to port directly into danger underscore the fundamental importance of attentive watchkeeping and adherence to the basic rules of seamanship. A head-on or near head-on situation demands starboard action from both vessels, and a turn to port in such circumstances is one of the most dangerous manoeuvres a vessel can make.

For practitioners, the decision reinforces the approach to apportionment set out in the established authorities, including The Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the Vessel Tojo Maru v NV Bureau Wijsmuller (The Tojo Maru) [1972] AC 242 and the guidance on the relative weight to be given to causative potency and blameworthiness. The 80/20 apportionment reflects both the catastrophic nature of the Kiveli’s port turn and the relatively minor—though not blameless—tardiness of the Afina I’s starboard alteration.

The Kiveli and Afina I case is a welcome addition to the growing body of modern collision jurisprudence from the Admiralty Court and the Court of Appeal, and it will be of direct assistance to those advising on collision claims, particularly in open-water encounters where the characterisation of the situation under the ColRegs is in dispute.