H.M.S. "TRUCULENT."

[1951] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 308

ADMIRALTY DIVISION.

Before Mr. Justice Willmer, sitting with Captain C. St. G. Glasson and Captain D. Dunn, Elder Brethren of Trinity House.

Limitation of liability-H.M. ships-Collision - Misleading lights - Duty to issue warning-"Actual fault or privity of owner"-Collision between H.M. submarine Truculent and Swedish steamship Divina in Thames Estuary-Truculent sunk-Admitted negligence of both ships-Agreed apportionment of blame: Truculent, 75 per cent.; Divina, 25 per cent. -Life claims brought against Admiralty - Action brought by Admiralty for limitation of liability- Evidence that Divina was exhibiting red light of ship carrying petroleum and that lights of Truculent did not comply with Art. 2 (a) of Collision Regulations (which by Admiralty Instructions were made applicable to H.M. ships)-Plea by life claimants in objection to limitation action that there was fault or privity on part of Admiralty in that no notice was given by Admiralty that at the particular time the Truculent or other submarines would be navigating on surface at night in Thames Estuary; that Truculent in the particular area should have carried compulsory pilot or have been in charge of an officer with full knowledge of local rules relating to exhibition of lights on petroleum ships; that lights exhibited by Truculent did not comply with Collision Regulations and were so placed that they were liable to mislead, and did in fact mislead, those in charge of Divina; and that no notice was issued warning mariners that H.M. submarines might be found navigating on surface at night with lights which did not comply with Collision Regulations -Evidence that it was impracticable for submarines to comply with requirements of Collision Regulations as to positioning of lights-Whether exhibition of misleading lights on Truculent was a fault on part of person or persons whose fault or privity would defeat Admiralty's limitation claim- H.M.S. "Truculent." Adm. 309 Statutory duty upon Admiralty to equip ships with proper lights- Whether mere proof of defective lights was sufficient to preclude Admiralty from establishing absence of "fault or privity"-Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, Sects. 419, 503, 741-Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, Sect. 5.