Jurisprudence on Interpretation of the 1910 Collision Convention

U.S. Court of Appeals-II Circ. 6 July 2007

Before dawn on December 14, 2002, three vessels, the M/V

(the

), the M/V

(the

) and the M/V

(the

) were navigating a Traffic Separation Scheme ("TSS") in international waters north of Dunkerque, France (in the English Channel). At the relevant point of the TSS, two branches intersect at approximately right angles, one branch cutting roughly North-South, the other roughly East-West. On the night in question, the fog was thick and visibility was low. The

was proceeding westward at about 16 knots. The

was also proceeding westward at 17.9 knots, one-half mile to the starboard aft of the

, and in the process of gradually overtaking her. At the same time, the

was moving northward, along the intersecting branch of the TSS, at 13 knots, on a collision course with the

.

Noticing that it was on a collision course, the

planned to turn starboard and steer astern of the

. Before the

began to turn, however, the

initiated its own evasive manoeuvre. The

, seeking to avoid a collision with the

- and perhaps unaware of the proximity of the

- made an abrupt turn to starboard. The

struck the port side of the

, rending the

's hull below its bridge. The

along with its cargo then sank. There were no human casualties.

In the quarter-hour leading up to the collision, none of the vessels sounded its foghorn or communicated with any other vessel via radio.

In June 2003, Otal Investments, Ltd., the owner of the

(hereinafter, Otal and the

together the "

"), filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York "seeking Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability." In response to this complaint, numerous claimants filed claims against the

, seeking damages for the loss of their cargo, which had sunk along with the

(hereinafter, the claimants will be called the "cargo owners"). Meanwhile, the

impleaded the

and the

as third-party defendants.

The

and the cargo owners settled their disputes before trial, and the

agreed to resolve its disputes against the

in Belgium. For the district court, this left only the disputes between the

and the cargo owners, on the one side, and the

and the

, on the other. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the

and the

, finding the

to have been the sole cause of the collision.

All parties agreed the substantive law governing this case derived from treaties ratified by the vessels' flag states. Specifically, the navigational duties are contained in The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (the "COLREGS"). In addition, the parties stipulated their claims should be adjudicated "in accordance with" the Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels, 1910 (the "1910 Collision Convention").

The district court found the rule in

did not apply in this case. "Generally," the court held, "United States courts will apply the 1910 Collision Convention when a collision occurs in international waters between vessels that fly flags of signatory states."

, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21580 at *6. Article 6 of that Convention states "[a]ll legal presumptions of fault in regard to liability for collision are abolished." If the rule in

is substantive, the court noted, Article 6 of the Convention would override it.

. at *8.

Both the

and the cargo owners appealed from this judgment, seeking a reversal of the district court's determination that the

was solely liable. The

and the

sought to preserve that decision.

Appellants the

and cargo owners argued that while substantive law was governed by the 1910 Collision Convention, procedural law was governed by the law of the forum and that, therefore, the Pennsylvania Rule applied, since it its nature was procedural.

After deciding that the Pennsylvania Rule is substantive, the Court of Appeals considered the allocation of liability under the 1910 Collision Convention.

Held, by the U.S. Court of Appeal-II Circ., that:

U.S. Court of Appeals-II Circ. 6 July 2007

(The summary of facts may be found in the section "Allocation of liability")

Held, by the U.S. Court of Appeal-II Circ., that:

v.

, Court of Appeal 1 February 2008

In August 1999 Ms. Chan's barge (the Tow) sank while being towed by Mr. Wong's vessel (the Tug). In April 2005 Ms. Chan issued a writ against Mr. Wong claiming damages for the loss of the Tow. The writ alleged breach of contract on the part of Mr. Wong and/or negligent navigation and/or management of the Tug.

In his Defence, Mr. Wong contended that Ms. Chan's claim was time-barred by reason of Merchant Shipping (Collision Damage Liability and Salvage) Ordinance (Cap.508) section 7(1).

The High Court of Admiralty heard the time-bar question as a preliminary issue. It held that there was no good reason for extending the limitation of two years imposed by the Ordinance and that Ms. Chan was thus out of time in bringing her action. Ms. Chan appealed against this determination on the ground that, on its true construction, section 7(1) only applied to tortious claims and that the claim for breach of contract (arising from alleged negligence in navigation of the Tug) should therefore be allowed to proceed on the basis that the appropriate limitation period was 6 years (under the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347)).

Held, by the Court of Appeal, that