Western Neptune v Philadelphia Express - Some Interesting Points Arising In A Collision Case

This case highlights a number of issues that the court may take into consideration when exercising its discretion in awarding costs. If they are to avoid the risk of being penalised on costs, parties should endeavour to exercise good litigation practice, which includes making a realistic settlement offer as early as practicable and before significant litigation costs are incurred,and complying promptly and comprehensively with any disclosure orders.

Facts and original dispute on liability

This case, heard by the Admiralty Court in London, involved a collision in September 2007 between a seismic survey vessel, Western Neptune, and a container vessel, St Louis Express, in the Gulf of Mexico. The Western Neptune was towing a spread of gun arrays and streamers (the former send out sound waves generated by compressed air and hydrophones and the latter record the echo) at night, when the St Louis Express crossed astern of the Western Neptune and collided with the array.

The claimant owners of the Western Neptune alleged that the collision was caused by the negligence of the St Louis Express and they brought proceedings against the defendant owners of the St Louis Express claiming damages of about £25 million. The St Louis Express suffered no damage and consequently there was no counterclaim.

The defendants conceded during the trial that they bore the majority of the blame for the collision because the St Louis Express had entered the "safety box" around the Western Neptune (3 miles ahead, 3 miles on each side and 6 miles astern). This had been requested by one of the vessels supporting the Western Neptune acting as a "guard" vessel for the convoy by contacting approaching vessels on behalf of the Western Neptune. It was accepted that the St Louis Express had altered her course to port improperly, crossed the array's path and had not recognised the significance of warning lights on the buoys attached to the end of the array.

There was, however, a dispute as to whether the claimants were partly to blame for the collision. The question also arose as to whether the array was to be treated as part of the Western Neptune for the purposes of the collision avoidance rules. Having consulted with the nautical assessors sitting with him in the Admiralty Court, Mr Justice David Steel accepted their view that the tow must always be treated as part of the towing vessel for the purposes of collision avoidance. In this case, the Western Neptune's array, as a...