The Ever Smart and Alexandria I Collision - What Does it Mean?

Much has been written about the judgment, but what does it mean to your bridge team?

What happened?

• On 11 February 2015, the container ship Ever Smart collided with the tanker Alexandra I.
• The collision happened at the pilot boarding area, just outside the channel to Jebel Ali.
• The channel to Jebel Ali is a narrow channel as per Rule 9 of the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collision at Sea (COLREGS).
• Ever Smart was outbound and proceeding along the channel.
• Alexandra I was at the pilot boarding area waiting to pick up the pilot who was disembarking from Ever Smart.

What was the initial outcome?

Liability for the collision was first determined by the English Admiralty Court in 2017. In 2018, the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Before deciding who was to blame for the collision, the Admiralty Court first considered the relationship between the crossing rules (Rules 15 to 17 of the COLREGS) and the narrow channels rule (Rule 9 of the COLREGS).

The Admiralty Court determined that the crossing rules cannot apply where one vessel is navigating along a narrow channel and another vessel is navigating towards the channel with a view to entering it. The Admiralty Court also accepted that as Alexandra I was not on a steady course the crossing rules would not apply.

Who was to blame for the collision?

After deciding that the crossing rules did not apply, and that Alexandria I did not have to keep out of the way of Ever Smart, the Admiralty Court considered the faults of both vessels:

The Admiralty Court said that although there was very little difference in the contributions of both vessels in causing the collision, the unsafe speed of Ever Smart caused far more damage. Ever Smart’s faults were found to be far greater, and liability for the collision was apportioned with Ever Smart bearing 80 percent of the blame, and Alexandra I bearing 20% of the blame.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Admiralty Court and upheld the conclusion that a) the narrow channels rule applied to the exclusion of the crossing rules and b) that Alexandra I needed to be on a steady course for the crossing rules to apply.

What happened at the Supreme Court?

The appeal to the Supreme Court asked two important questions about the crossing rules and their relationship with the narrow channels rule.

Does the give-way vessel have to be on a steady course for the crossing rules to apply?

No. The Supreme Court said that if two vessels, both moving over the ground, are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, then the give-way vessel does not have to be on a steady course for the crossing rule to apply. As long as it is reasonably apparent to those navigating the two vessels that they are approaching each other on a steady bearing, then they are crossing so as to involve risk of collision.

The Supreme Court also thought about whether the stand-on vessel had to be on a steady course for the crossing rules to apply. Again, the Supreme Court answered ‘No’. But once the risk of collision exists and the crossing rules are engaged, then it must then keep its course and speed in accordance with Rule 17(a). This means that there is no requirement for the stand-on vessel to already be on a steady course or speed before the crossing rules apply.

The Supreme Court also said that the need to “keep her course and speed” does not mean the stand-on vessel must maintain its precise heading, course or speed, if, at the time the crossing rules are engaged, they are visibly conducting a nautical manoeuvre that requires adjustment to its heading, course or speed. An example of this may be creating a lee to pick up a pilot. Such a manoeuvre does not relieve the give-way vessel of its duty to keep clear.

Subject to the application the narrow channels rules, the Supreme Court held that the crossing rules applied and that Alexandria I, as the give-way vessel, had to keep well clear of Ever Smart.

Do the crossing rules apply when an outbound vessel is following a narrow channel, and has another vessel on a crossing course approaching the same narrow channel with the intention of and in preparation of entering it?

No. The Supreme Court said that the crossing rules are not overridden by the narrow channels rule just because the approaching vessel is intending and preparing to enter the narrow channel.

The crossing rules are only overridden by the narrow channel rules in very limited situations. These are:

1. Where two vessels are approaching one another in a narrow channel and are heading in opposite directions, both vessels should keep to the starboard side of the channel, even if they appear visually to be on crossing courses (e.g. bend in channel).
2. When the approaching vessel is adjusting its course and speed to enter the narrow channel on the starboard side and is on its final approach.

Other than these two situations, if two vessels, both moving over the ground, are on a steady bearing and are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, then the crossing rules will apply.

The Three Situations

The Supreme Court identified three situations that are likely to take place outside of the entrance to a narrow channel:

1. Vessels approaching the entrance of the channel, heading across it, on a route that starts and finishes at points outside the narrow channel: The crossing rules apply.

2. Vessels that are about to enter, and are on their final approach to the entrance of the narrow channel, and are adjusting their course to arrive on the starboard side of the channel: The narrow channels rule applies and overrides the crossing rules.

3. Vessels that are preparing to enter a narrow channel but are waiting to enter rather than entering straight away: The crossing rules apply.

Does this change who was to blame for the collision?

As the Supreme Court answered ‘no’ to both questions, the appeal was allowed and apportionment for the collision will now be reviewed by the Admiralty Court.

Don’t overlook the lookout

The Supreme Court has made clear how the crossing rules and narrow channels rule apply, but what about lookout?

It is often overlooked, but the main reason that Ever Smart and Alexandria I collided was not because the bridge teams were unsure whether the crossing rules or narrow channels rule applied; but because of the poor lookouts being kept by both vessels.

Ever Smart had not sighted Alexandria I visually until moments before the collision and had not determined if risk of collision existed; and Alexandria I had misheard a VHF conversation which led it to cross the channel.

The collision between Ever Smart and Alexandria I highlights the importance of maintaining a proper lookout by sight, hearing and all available means to make a full appraisal of the situation and in turn the risk of collision.

Practical impact of the judgment

Two things bridge teams must now know

1. Vessels do not need to be on a steady course for the crossing rules to apply

As long as they are approaching each other on a steady bearing, then they are crossing so as to involve risk of collision.

2. The crossing rules are not overridden by the narrow channels rule just because the approaching vessel is preparing to enter the narrow channel

The crossing rules are only overridden when the approaching vessel is preparing to enter and is adjusting its course to enter the narrow channel on the starboard side and is on its final approach.

Find out more

Click here to read the judgement.