How to save legal fees ..(whoopee another ColRegs thread)

[Bathdave]

They would have saved loads of legal costs if the experts on ColRegs on Scuttlebut had been the ajudicators, rather than the Supreme Court

Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited (Appellant) v Nautical Challenge Ltd (Respondent) - The Supreme Court

apparently the first Colregs case to go to the highest court in 50 years

clearly it’s not just scuttlebutters who disagree how potentially conflicting rules get to be applied

 

[Adios]

*Placeholder for getting my correct and definitive opinion in first once I've had a chance to read it*

Edit: No it looks damn complicated. I'll just do a legal degree, get some experience at the bar and be back to you in about a decade.

 

[PhillM]

Well that made everything perfectly clear. Nothing to see here, lets move on /.... I wonder which anchor the VLCC was going to use

 

[Adios]

What I do like about this case compared to the Shoreham one is it was decided by experienced judges and Nautical Assessors not a jury of laymen

 

[Bathdave]

Here’s a tip ...read the press summary rather than the full judgement

 

[newtothis]

What I do like about this case compared to the Shoreham one is it was decided by experienced judges and Nautical Assessors not a jury of laymen

View attachment 111352

The Supreme Court tends not to do jury trials.
Interesting thing in this case is that it took three trials to establish what is a pretty cut and dried radio-assisted port/starboard collision case. Arguably the boxship wasn't keeping a perfect lookout, but the debate here was about the percentage of damages that Evergreen should pay. Turns out the lower courts got it wrong on two occasions.

 

[RichardS]

The interesting point about the courts decision is that in so many ColRegs threads there has been a strong opinion that, ultimately, in the event of a collision then both parties are, more or less, equally to blame as both parties have a responsibility to avoid the collision.

I have always been one of those who has argued against this approach and often suggested a 90:10 or 75:25 or whatever, division of blame. In the instant case the court went for 80:20.

Richard

 

[awol]

One thing I took from an admittedly quick scan was the solution to a situation that has perplexed me but never actually caused me a problem. When tacking up restricted waters e.g. East Kyle of Bute I now know my "course" is towards the Burnt Islands while my heading will vary through 90degrees tacking and the rest as the wind swings (as it usually does). My speed is maintained thus I am stand-on vessel to any mobo that I am not overtaking despite zig-zagging, being headed or freed and the mobo should stay out the way!
My reading (very quick) was that the supreme court only decided on the crossing vs narrow channel question, damage allocation is being returned to the lower court.

 

[scottie]

Funny you should mention the east Kyle as I can recall the Davy McBrayne steamer KigGeorge ?going through the narrows giving way to the CCC Tobermory race and nobody got hurt except the telegraph operator and the chief engineer
It was before the new fangled constrained and narrow rules were introduced

 

[dom]

What I do like about this case compared to the Shoreham one is it was decided by experienced judges and Nautical Assessors not a jury of laymen

The Supreme Court has a totally different role.

As newtothis suggests, the UK Supreme Court only hears appeals and its focus is on arguable points of law of general public importance, as opposed to a determination of who did what.

 

[JumbleDuck]

One thing I took from an admittedly quick scan was the solution to a situation that has perplexed me but never actually caused me a problem. When tacking up restricted waters e.g. East Kyle of Bute I now know my "course" is towards the Burnt Islands while my heading will vary through 90degrees tacking and the rest as the wind swings (as it usually does). My speed is maintained thus I am stand-on vessel to any mobo that I am not overtaking despite zig-zagging, being headed or freed and the mobo should stay out the way!

This came up in a discussion on the mobo forum a few years back, and my recollection is that case law has decided that a sailing vessel can stand-on by tacking, just as a power-driven vessel (or a sailing one) can stand on by avoiding hazards. In particular, you can stand one by stopping to pick up a pilot. Basically, and IANALTG, "stand one"seems to mean "behave in a predictable way and as if the other vessel wasn't there".

 

[Adios]

This came up in a discussion on the mobo forum a few years back, and my recollection is that case law has decided that a sailing vessel can stand-on by tacking, just as a power-driven vessel (or a sailing one) can stand on by avoiding hazards. In particular, you can stand one by stopping to pick up a pilot. Basically, and IANALTG, "stand one"seems to mean "behave in a predictable way and as if the other vessel wasn't there".

When I was pretty new to this I was nervously approached the 2 ferries at Woolwich as they were leaving their docks, I think I powered back, but I got shouted at through a loud hailer from one of the ferry skippers "HOLD YOUR COURSE!". Being predictable is often much more useful to the other boat than doing something YOU think will be better than being predictable.

 

[TernVI]

The interesting point about the courts decision is that in so many ColRegs threads there has been a strong opinion that, ultimately, in the event of a collision then both parties are, more or less, equally to blame as both parties have a responsibility to avoid the collision.

I have always been one of those who has argued against this approach and often suggested a 90:10 or 75:25 or whatever, division of blame. In the instant case the court went for 80:20.

Richard

What I'm not entirely comfortable with is that no blame attached to Port Control, who were supposed to be, err, in control of movements within their port.

It just shows that these cases are not always clear cut, and that the courts take months to decide, when the mariner has to make a decision in minutes or seconds. Same as the Racing Rules of Sailing, where protests and appeals can argue for hours about a 3 second incident.

 

[newtothis]

What I'm not entirely comfortable with is that no blame attached to Port Control, who were supposed to be, err, in control of movements within their port.

The Supreme Court case wasn't about who did what when. It was strictly deciding whether the lower courts had been correct in their interpretation of the colregs.
A court can only rule on what it has been asked to rule on. If the plaintiff had thought port control was somehow responsible it would have had to have argued that case in a lower court.

 

[LittleSister]

It's clear that the judges have failed to pay attention to those on this forum who insist that small vessels should just keep out of the way of large ones, and leisure vessels always give way to working ones.

'[The ColRegs] must be interpreted in a practical, uniform manner to provide clear navigational rules for all mariners, whether professional or amateur, and for all vessels, large and small.

The interpretation of the crossing rules should have due regard to the well-known statement of Lord Wright in The Alcoa Rambler [1949] AC 236 (Privy Council) that “wherever possible” the crossing rules “ought to be applied and strictly enforced because they tend to secure safe navigation”.'

What I do like about this case compared to the Shoreham one is it was decided by experienced judges and Nautical Assessors not a jury of laymen

I think you are slightly incorrect. Its was decided solely by the Supreme Court judges, but with the benefit of expert advice from the nautical assessors.
"The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were each assisted by Elder Brethren of Trinity House, as Nautical Assessors. Nautical Assessors provide the court with advice on navigation and seamanship matters, but the court is not bound by that advice and must interpret the Collision Regulations as a matter of law."

One thing I took from an admittedly quick scan was the solution to a situation that has perplexed me but never actually caused me a problem. When tacking up restricted waters e.g. East Kyle of Bute I now know my "course" is towards the Burnt Islands while my heading will vary through 90degrees tacking and the rest as the wind swings (as it usually does). My speed is maintained thus I am stand-on vessel to any mobo that I am not overtaking despite zig-zagging, being headed or freed and the mobo should stay out the way!
My reading (very quick) was that the supreme court only decided on the crossing vs narrow channel question, damage allocation is being returned to the lower court.

They did specifically say (in considering Issue 2) that there was not a requirement in the ColRegs for either the stand-on or give-way vessel to be on a steady heading for the crossing rules to be engaged. My understanding is that was critical was that they maintained their 'course', and that may have involved changes in heading.

This came up in a discussion on the mobo forum a few years back, and my recollection is that case law has decided that a sailing vessel can stand-on by tacking, just as a power-driven vessel (or a sailing one) can stand on by avoiding hazards. In particular, you can stand one by stopping to pick up a pilot. Basically, and IANALTG, "stand one"seems to mean "behave in a predictable way and as if the other vessel wasn't there".

That was roughly my understanding, but in the Press Summary for this case, the Supreme Court seemed to suggest there were conflicting precedent cases about whether you had to be on a steady 'heading', but that 'they could be interpreted . . .'. It wasn't very clear to me from the Press Summary, but I wasn't able to find the full Judgement.

 

[Adios]

Athomson said:
What I do like about this case compared to the Shoreham one is it was decided by experienced judges and Nautical Assessors not a jury of laymen

I think you are slightly incorrect. Its was decided solely by the Supreme Court judges, but with the benefit of expert advice from the nautical assessors.
"The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were each assisted by Elder Brethren of Trinity House, as Nautical Assessors. Nautical Assessors provide the court with advice on navigation and seamanship matters, but the court is not bound by that advice and must interpret the Collision Regulations as a matter of law."

It was "and" in the sense they'd have been in collaboration with them but yes the decision of course just rests with the judges. But the main difference from the other case being the ones deciding (the judges) are professional deciders. Not laymen who are neither nautical experts or professional deciders. On a technical issue of what is a "sufficient watch for a professional" I'd prefer my fate to rest with people in the field or judges aided by nautical experts. Might be many people would prefer to hope for the mercy of a jury when they are in the wrong though.

 

[kaj]

Are the UK Supreme Court judgments regarding The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea restricted to the UK or is the UKSC jurisdiction wider?

 

[MADRIGAL]

The appellant operated a UK-flagged vessel (Eversmart), and had been sued in UK Admiralty court by the owners of the vessel most damaged in the collision, the Marshall Islands-flagged tanker (Alexandra 1). The suit was brought in the UK because the vessel being sued was flagged in the UK, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the UK courts. The appeal by Eversmart’s owners against the Admiralty Court’s decision went first to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court.