Navigator Aries v Leo Perdana: Apportionment of Liability in Surabaya Strait Collision

In [2023] SGCA 20, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard the appeal regarding the collision between the Navigator Aries, owned by the Appellant, and the Leo Perdana, owned by the Respondent, in the Surabaya Strait. The High Court had apportioned liability 70:30 in favor of the Leo Perdana. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding both vessels equally to blame for the collision and apportioning liability at 50:50. The case involved a claim to determine liability for the collision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal: Collision between Navigator Aries and Leo Perdana in Surabaya Strait. Liability apportioned 50:50 due to breaches of COLREGS.

1.7 Decision Date

6 July 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Owner of the vessel “NAVIGATOR ARIES”	Appellant, Plaintiff, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Jonathan Lim Shi Cao of Resource Law LLC Seah Lee Guan Collin of Resource Law LLC Choi Yee Hang Ian of Resource Law LLC
Owner of the vessel “LEO PERDANA”	Respondent, Plaintiff, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Mohamed Goush s/o Marikan of Goush Marikan Law Practice Mohd Munir Marican of Marican & Associates

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jonathan Lim Shi Cao	Resource Law LLC
Seah Lee Guan Collin	Resource Law LLC
Choi Yee Hang Ian	Resource Law LLC
Mohamed Goush s/o Marikan	Goush Marikan Law Practice
Mohd Munir Marican	Marican & Associates

4. Facts

The Navigator Aries (NA) and Leo Perdana (LP) collided in the Surabaya Strait on 28 June 2015.
The LP experienced a port sheer due to hydrodynamic interaction with a bank, known as the bow cushion effect.
Both vessels were under compulsory pilotage and had agreed to a port-to-port passing.
The NA failed to alter course sufficiently to starboard, breaching Rule 9(a) of the COLREGS.
The LP's pilot gave a 'midships' order, removing starboard helm and contributing to the port sheer.
Both vessels were traveling at excessive speeds, violating Rule 6 of the COLREGS.
The LP failed to detect and react to the bow cushion effect early enough.

5. Formal Citations

The “Navigator Aries”, Civil Appeal No 45 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 20

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-06-28	Collision occurred in the Surabaya Strait
2016-01-01	Admiralty in Rem No 170 of 2016 commenced by Owner of the vessel “NAVIGATOR ARIES”
2016-01-01	Admiralty in Rem No 204 of 2016 commenced by Owner of the vessel “LEO PERDANA”
2021-09-13	Judge delivered an oral judgment and apportioned liability at 70:30 in the LP’s favour
2021-09-28	Judge made costs orders based on a similar apportionment
2021-10-12	Appellant appealed against the whole of the Judge’s decision
2022-11-04	Matter was transferred from the Appellate Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal
2023-04-03	Hearing Date
2023-07-07	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Apportionment of Liability for Maritime Collision
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal apportioned liability equally between the two vessels.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Causation
  - Culpability
  - Breach of Collision Regulations
  - Excessive Speed
  - Failure to Keep Proper Lookout
  - Improper Helm Orders
  - Failure to Detect Hydrodynamic Effects
Interpretation of Rule 9(a) of the COLREGS
- Outcome: The Court held that Rule 9(a) embodies the Limit Requirement, requiring vessels to keep as near to the outer limit of the channel on their starboard side as is safe and practicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Narrow Channel Rule
  - Safe and Practicable Navigation
  - Lane Requirement vs. Limit Requirement
Breach of Collision Regulations
- Outcome: Both vessels were found to have breached multiple rules of the COLREGS, contributing to the collision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to Keep Proper Lookout
  - Failure to Use All Available Means to Assess Risk of Collision
  - Failure to Take Appropriate Action to Avoid Collision
  - Excessive Speed in a Narrow Channel
Causation in Maritime Collisions
- Outcome: The Court determined that the immediate cause of the collision was the LP's port sheer, but that both vessels contributed to the circumstances leading to the sheer.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Immediate Cause
  - Proximate Cause
  - Novus Actus Interveniens
  - Bow Cushion Effect

8. Remedies Sought

Determination of Liability for Collision
Apportionment of Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Statutory Duty (Violation of COLREGS)

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty Litigation
Shipping Litigation
Collision Claims

11. Industries

Shipping
Maritime Transport

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The “Dream Star”	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 473	Singapore	Cited for the principle that apportionment of liability is based on a broad, commonsensical, and qualitative assessment of culpability and causative potency.
The “Mount Apo” and another matter	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 4 SLR 909	Singapore	Cited for the principle that apportionment of liability is based on a broad, commonsensical, and qualitative assessment of culpability and causative potency.
The “Angelic Spirit” and “Y Mariner”	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 595	Unknown	Cited for the principle that the focus is on each vessel’s responsibility relative to the other.
The “Nordlake” and The “Seaeagle”	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 656	Unknown	Cited for the principle that breaches of obligations under the COLREGS will usually be regarded as seriously culpable.
The “Maloja II”	Unknown	Yes	[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48	Unknown	Cited for the principle that greater fault would tend to lie with errors of navigation committed by an officer who has had time to think.
The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “MCC Jakarta” v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77”	High Court of Hong Kong	Yes	[2017] HKCFI 981	Hong Kong	Cited for the principle that greater fault would tend to lie with errors of navigation committed by an officer who has had time to think.
The “Magnolia”	Unknown	Yes	[1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 417	Unknown	Cited for the principle that where the defendant’s own negligence is still active and productive of some effect, the plea of novus actus interveniens has no place.
Sandy Island Pte Ltd v Thio Keng Thay	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1089	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the intervening event is one that can be said to be so significant causally as to break the causal link.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the intervening event is one that can be said to be so significant causally as to break the causal link.
FMG Hong Kong Shipping Limited, the Demise Charterers of “FMG Sydney” v The Owners of the “MSC Apollo”	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2023] EWHC 328	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the limit of “reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses” in Rule 14(a) is set by Rule 14(b).
Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v Nautical Challenge Ltd	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2021] UKSC 6	United Kingdom	Cited for the overarching principles applicable to interpreting the COLREGS.
The “Maritime Harmony”	Unknown	Yes	[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 400	Unknown	Cited to show that courts have made reference to whether a vessel was on the correct “side” of the channel or in her “wrong water”, which appears to endorse the Lane Requirement.
The “Nordic Ferry”	Unknown	Yes	[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 591	Unknown	Cited to show that courts have made reference to whether a vessel was on the correct “side” of the channel or in her “wrong water”, which appears to endorse the Lane Requirement.
The “Sanwa” and “Choyang Star”	Unknown	Yes	[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 283	Unknown	Cited to show that courts have made reference to whether a vessel was on the correct “side” of the channel or in her “wrong water”, which appears to endorse the Lane Requirement.
The “Mersey No 30”	Unknown	Yes	[1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 183	Unknown	Cited to show that concerns with vessels staying too close to the centre line had been articulated even when the Lane Requirement was the applicable rule.
Alize 1954 and another v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and others	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2021] UKSC 51	United Kingdom	Cited for the holding that a vessel may be unseaworthy if its passage plan is defective.
The “Pelopidas” and “TRSL Concord”	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 675	Unknown	Cited as it also concerns an unexpected sheer that was exacerbated by speed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 9(a) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 25(a) of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1960
Rule 5 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 7 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 8 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 6 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972
Rule 14 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Maritime Conventions Act 1911	Singapore
Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Collision Regulations
Narrow Channel
Bow Cushion Effect
Port Sheer
Pilotage
Apportionment of Liability
Safe Speed
Good Seamanship
COLREGS
VHF Communication
Dredged Channel
Recommended Track
Hydrodynamic Interaction
Underkeel Clearance

15.2 Keywords

collision
maritime
shipping
negligence
COLREGS
Surabaya Strait
apportionment
liability
narrow channel
bow cushion effect

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Collision	95
Shipping	90
Admiralty and Maritime Law	90
Torts	50
Negligence	40
Causation	40
Civil Litigation	30
Arbitration	30
Good seamanship	30
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Maritime Law
Admiralty
Shipping
Collision
Negligence
International Law