Monford Management Limited (the owners of the vessel 'Kiveli') (Appellant) v Afina Navigation Limited (the owners of the vessel 'Afina I') (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0043

Parties

Appellant(s)

MONFORD MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Respondent(s)

AFINA NAVIGATION LIMITED

Issue

(i) What is the correct definition of a ‘head-on situation’ under Rule 14 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (as amended) (the “Collision Regulations”)? (ii) Can a ‘head-on situation’ exist under the Collision Regulations where, by night, one vessel sees another ahead or nearly ahead but can only see one of their sidelights but not both?

Facts

The appellant, Monford Management Limited, is the owner of a vessel called ‘KIVELI’ whilst the respondent, Afina Navigation Limited, is the owner of a vessel called ‘AFINA I’. Those vessels collided off the south coast of Greece on the morning of 13 March 2021 (the “Collision”). Following the Collision, the High Court held that KIVELI was 80% at fault for the Collision. In coming to this conclusion, the Trial Judge had to consider the Collision Regulations, which provide rules for vessels as to what actions they should take in response to certain scenarios to reduce the risk of, and hopefully avoid, collisions. More specifically, the Trial Judge considered whether Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations applied to the facts such that there was a ‘head-on situation’. In overview, Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations provides that, where two vessels are meeting on (nearly) reciprocal courses which involves a risk of collision, each shall alter their course to pass by each other. Rule 14(b) provides that this will be deemed to occur when “a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she would see the masthead lights of the other in line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel”. Evidence concerning when each vessel could see the other’s lights in the lead up to the Collision and which lights could be seen was given. The Trial Judge did not make a finding as to what either vessel could or did see. However, KIVELI argues that the agreed electronic data appeared to demonstrate that KIVELI would have only been able to see one of AFINA I’s sidelights (the green sidelight) and not the other (the red sidelight). In the High Court, the Trial Judge held that a risk of collision arose 22 minutes before the Collision and that, under Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations, it did not matter that KIVELI would not have seen both of AFINA I’s sidelights. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal, agreeing with the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 14 of the Collision Regulations. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Date of issue

13 April 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top