The case concerned a collision between the vessels KIVELI and AFINA I off the South coast of Greece, when KIVELI turned to port as AFINA I was turning to starboard resulting in the bow of KIVELI becoming embedded in the port side of AFINA I.

The issues were (i) fault, including when a risk of collision existed and whether the situation was correctly analysed under the Collision Regulations as a head-on situation under Rule 14 or a crossing situation under Rule 15, and (ii) apportionment of liability. KIVELI argued that Rule 15 applied, and that it was a stand-on vessel, whilst AFINA I argued that Rule 14 applied, and that the sole or predominant cause of the collision was KIVELI wrongfully turning to port when she should have turned to starboard.

The court addressed a number of issues in relation to the proper construction of the Collision Regulations, including the inter-relationship between paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 14.  It considered that the situation was, and remained, a head-on situation under Rule 14, not a crossing situation under Rule 15, but either way KIVELI’s fault was four times as great as that of AFINA I, due to KIVELI’s numerous breaches of the Collision Regulations, including a failure to keep a good lookout and a negligent turn to port which was the principal cause of the collision. AFINA I should have turned to starboard earlier, which would have reduced the risk of collision, though her error was of far less causative potency. The court apportioned liability at 80% and 20% (KIVELI and AFINA I).

The judgment [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty) can be found on the National Archives here, and a further short judgment dealing with permission to appeal, [2025] EWHC 1210 (Admlty), can be found on the National Archives website (external link).