Monford Management Ltd (Owners of “KIVELI”) v Afina Navigation Limited (Owners of “AFINA I”)
DMC/SandT/26/06
England
Monford Management Ltd (Owners of “KIVELI”) v Afina Navigation Limited (Owners of “AFINA I”)
English Court of Appeal: Coulson, Nugee and Foxton LJJ: [2026] EWCA Civ 251: 11 March 2026
Judgment available on BAILII @ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2026/251.html
Christopher Smith KC and Andrew Carruth (instructed by HFW LLP) for the Appellants (Owners of “KIVELI”)
Nigel Cooper KC and Robert Ward (instructed by MFB Solicitors and Tatham & Co) for the Respondents (Owners of “AFINA I”)
ADMIRALTY: COLLISION LIABILITY: CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA (“COLREGS”) 1972: INTERPRETATION OF RULE 14 AND RULE 15: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: FAILURE BY “KIVELI” TO TURN TO STARBOARD LED TO ATTRIBUTION OF 80% LIABILITY: WHETHER RULE 14 (“HEAD-ON” SITUATION) OR RULE 15 (“CROSSING” SITUATION) APPLIED AND TOOK PRECEDENCE: APPEAL ON QUESTIONS OF LAW: USE OF NAUTICAL ASSESSORS IN APPEAL FROM ADMIRALTY COURT JUDGMENT
DMC Classification: Developed
Summary
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the first instance decision of Bryan J that gave precedence to Rule 14 (the “head-on” rule – fn.7) over Rule 15 (the “crossing” rule – fn.8) of the COLREGS. The Court held that Rule 14 is not strictly limited by arcs of visibility of the on-coming vessel’s sidelights. If vessels are on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses, such that a risk of collision exists, then Rule 14 applies. In particular, this judgment emphasises a practical, mariner-focused interpretation of the COLREGS to ensure certainty in navigation.
Case note contributed by Captain Amarinder Singh Brar, Master Mariner, LLM (Maritime Law), Marine Manager with Campbell Johnston Clark Ltd, and International Contributor to DMC’s CaseNotes. Captain Brar was the Master Mariner assisting the AFINA I interests in the first instance litigation.
Background
On 13 March 2021, the bulk carriers “KIVELI” and “AFINA I” collided off the south coast of Greece. The vessels were approaching each other on nearly reciprocal courses in the Stenó Elafonísou Strait. “KIVELI” argued that the situation was a "crossing" situation under Rule 15, making her the stand-on vessel. “AFINA I” contended it was a "head-on" situation under Rule 14, requiring both vessels to alter course to starboard.
In the underlying Admiralty Court judgment, Bryan J, sitting with nautical assessor Commodore Dorey, found that the vessels were meeting on nearly reciprocal courses, that “KIVELI” had improperly turned to port to "cross" the bow of “AFINA I” instead of turning to starboard as required by the COLREGS, and so apportioned liability 80-20 in favour of “AFINA I”.
“KIVELI” appealed on the construction of Rule 14, arguing that the vessels must be within the 2-degree "dead ahead" arc for Rule 14 to apply, i.e. both sidelights must be visible; and, therefore, if only one sidelight is visible, it must be a “crossing” situation under Rule 15.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Admiralty Court’s interpretation, for the following reasons.
1. Precedence of Rule 14
The Court held that Rule 14 takes precedence over Rule 15. Once engaged, Rule 14 continues to apply until the risk of collision that brought Rule 14 into operation has passed. This is essential for maritime safety, to prevent "fine crossing" situations from causing confusion, where one vessel turns to starboard and the other turns to port (fn.1), rather than both turning to port, to avoid collision (“head-on”) and converging (“crossing”) courses.
2. The "Deeming" Provision of Rule 14(b)
The Court clarified that Rule 14(b) is a deeming provision intended to assist mariners, not an exhaustive definition that limits Rule 14(a). A “head-on” situation can exist even if both sidelights are not yet visible, provided the courses are nearly reciprocal and involve a risk of collision. The Court gave effect to the ordinary meaning of the language used (fn.2).
3. Practical Interpretation
The Court emphasised that the COLREGS must be interpreted in a "practical manner" capable of being applied by all mariners. A rigid "2-degree" rule, based on sidelight arcs, would be impractical for watch officers to calculate in real-time and would undermine the safety objective of the COLREGS (fn.3).
4. Procedural Guidance on Nautical Assessors
The Court also provided guidance on the appointment of nautical assessors in appeals. The Court suggesting that the involvement of assessors should be based on the specific needs of the case, rather than being a mandatory requirement in every collision appeal. The Court clarified that unless the order for leave to appeal specifies the presence of assessors, the parties should take it that the Court granting the leave to appeal concluded that assessors were not required (fn.4). Here, the Court stated that this appeal dealt with the legal construction of the COLREGS, for which assessors were not necessary.
5. The Trial is not a Dress Rehearsal
The Court commented that it sometimes seemed that Owners of “KIVELI” were seeking to rerun large parts of their factual case, including matters clearly set out by the nautical assessor in the trial. The Court emphasised that, as previously cited in other judgments, the first instance trial is the first and the last night of the show (fn.5), so there is no opportunity to seek to rerun the arguments on the facts on appeal.
Comment
This decision is a significant and positive "safety first" ruling. By reinforcing that Rule 14 covers a broader range of "nearly reciprocal" courses, rather than just those where both sidelights are visible, the Court has reduced the legal "grey area" between “head-on” and “crossing” situations. The judgment, therefore, confirms that the English courts will prioritise the interpretation that leads to the most certain and safe navigational outcome.
Parties should ensure that, when considering collision liability, the focus remains on the courses of the vessels and the risk of collision under Rule 14(a), rather than getting bogged down in technical arguments regarding the exact arc of light visibility under Rule 14(b).
This is probably the first Admiralty litigation where Mr Harry Hirst’s book, “Collisions at Sea”, was cited as an authority by the English Admiralty Court and Court of Appeal.
In a notable departure from purely qualitative witness evidence and pleadings, “AFINA I” successfully "reverse engineered" the vessels’ electronic data to establish the visual perspective of the bridge teams in the underlying trial at first instance. By applying basic high school trigonometry to NMEA data (a standard data format supported by all global positioning system (“GPS”) manufacturers) extracted from the vessels’ Voyage Data Recorders (“VDRs”), the precise horizontal angles subtended by the masthead lights of one vessel as seen from the other were calculated. The calculations, included in the agreed bundle, demonstrated that, at the time the COLREGS were engaged, the horizontal angles subtended by the masthead lights of the vessels to each other were negligible—specifically, they were all "zero in the first decimal place."
This mathematical evidence was pivotal in proving that a reasonably competent officer on either vessel would have seen the other’s masthead lights "in a line or nearly in a line" (fn.6). This objective data, subsequently accepted and mentioned by the nautical assessor in his advice to the Admiralty Court, underpinned the finding that a Rule 14 “head-on” situation existed, not a Rule 15 “crossing” situation. That conclusion was upheld by the Court of Appeal. This led to the obiter (non-binding) observation by the Court of Appeal, that the first instance trial is the final trial.
At the time of writing, it is not yet known whether Owners of “KIVELI” will seek permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. However, given the Court of Appeal’s robust emphasis on navigational certainty and the 'deeming' nature of Rule 14(b), such an application would face significant hurdles to success.
Footnote 1: [2026] EWCA Civ 251, para [134]
Footnote 2: [2026] EWCA Civ 251, paras [112]–[130]
Footnote 3: [2026] EWCA Civ 251, paras [40]–[41]
Footnote 4: [2026] EWCA Civ 251, paras [146]/[149]–[150]
Footnote 5: [2026] EWCA Civ 251, para [151]
Footnote 6: [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty), Annex 2, Nautical Assessor’s response to Questions 2 and 4
Footnote 7:
Rule 14 Head-on situation
(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.
(b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.
Footnote 8:
Rule 15 Crossing situation
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.
