“HEAD-ON” or “CROSSING” SITUATION – The Court of Appeal decides - Nigel Cooper KC and Robert Ward

• Published date: 17 March 2026
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Quadrant Chambers
• Author: Mr Nigel Cooper KC and Robert Ward

OVERVIEW

Today the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Monford Management Ltd (the owners of the KIVELI) v Afina Navigation Limited (the owners of the AFINA I) [2026] EWCA Civ 251, the first Court of Appeal decision to directly consider the interpretation of Rule 14 of the 1972 Collision Regulations, the “head-on situation”. The judgment provides important guidance as to when a “head-on situation” exists rather than a “crossing situation” and reinforces the precedence of Rule 14 over Rule 15.

Specifically, the judgment determines that the application of Rule 14(b) is not limited by the arc of visibility of a vessel's sidelights and that it is not necessary for a vessel to be able to see both sidelights of the other vessel for a head-on situation to exist if the other vessel's masthead lights are in line or nearly in line.

The judgment also offers guidance as to the appropriate procedure for the appointment of nautical assessors in future collision appeals.

The Judgment of Bryan J

On 13 March 2021, two bulk carriers, KIVELI and AFINA I, collided off the south coast of Greece. Following a trial on liability, Mr Justice Bryan apportioned fault 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I ([2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty)). Rule 14 states:

• “(a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other
• (b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel.
• (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists, she shall assume that it does and act accordingly.”

The Judge's key factual findings were that at the time the risk of collision arose at C-22 (i.e. 22 minutes prior to the collision): (1) the difference between the vessels' courses was 6.9 degrees; (2) the AFINA was located 2.1 degrees off the port bow of KIVELI; (3) the KIVELI was located 4.9 degrees off the starboard bow of AFINA I; and (4) each vessel could see the other ahead or nearly ahead and with her masthead lights in a line or nearly in a line.

Bryan J found that Rule 14 applied on the basis that Rule 14(a) provided a standalone objective test for a head-on situation and was satisfied by the vessels'...