THE OWNERS, DEMISE CHARTERS AND TIME CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP "WESTERN NEPTUNE" V THE OWNERS AND DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP "ST LOUIS EXPRESS"

[2009] EWHC 1274 (Admlty), Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court, Mr Justice David Steel, Commodore Peter Melson and Captain Nigel Pryke, Elder Brethren of Trinity House as Nautical Assessors, 25 June 2009

Admiralty – Application of collision rules – Vessel cut across array of seismic equipment in tow after survey vessel – Whether array to be treated as part of the vessel for collision avoidance – Display of lights required on tow – Use of radar transponders – Use of AIS – Good seamanship – Apportionment of liability – Collision Regulations Rule 24(g)and (h)

The container vessel St Louis Express ran into some seismic surveying equipment (“the array”) being towed by Western Neptune, a seismic survey vessel, in the Gulf of Mexico in September 2007. The array consisted of interlinked individual pieces of surveying equipment 120 m apart, which were sending out and receiving sound waves to measure an underwater canyon and was spread out over a very large area indeed. The 10 cables were each five nautical miles long, the width of the array was 1,080 m and the depth was 12 m. There were tail buoys displaying blue strobe lights at the end of the cables but no lights along the cables. The exclusion zone called for was of 54 nautical miles square. The manoeuvrability of Western Neptune was therefore restricted and there had been notices to other traffic. The speed of Western Neptune was about 4 to 5 knots. Two vessels towed further equipment 1,200 m and 2,400 m away respectively to the port side of Western Neptune, and there was a small converted fishing vessel called Furore ahead of it whose task it was to alert other craft via VHF, to prevent them from crossing the array and damaging the equipment. The collision happened as follows. St Louis Express, approaching, was alerted by Furore and changed course to port, which brought her too close to a third unrelated vessel, which asked her to come first to starboard until it had cleared that third vessel, then to port to avoid Western Neptune. As a result, St Louis Express cut across the array. The array of Western Neptune sustained losses said to be in the region of US$25 million. The court held that liability would be apportioned two thirds to St Louis Express and one third to Western Neptune. A tow, part of which was on the surface was to be treated for the purpose of collision avoidance as part of a very large vessel, since it could not take unilateral action. The court considered that the vast unlit space between the stern of Western Neptune and the buoys at the end of the cables presented a problem. Nevertheless it was reluctantly accepted that it was impracticable to have the requisite white lights at intervals along the cables (pursuant to Colregs Rule 24(g)), so that the blue strobe lights on the buoys at the end would have to do (pursuant to Colregs Rule 24(h)). It did not matter much for present purposes whether the appropriate lights should be displayed for the tow because the tow formed part of the vessel, or because it was good seamanship to do so. Industry standards did not include radar transponders on the tail buoys and therefore no finding of fault would be made in that respect. The court found, obiter, that Western Neptune should have regularly broadcast messages on her position, course, speed and lack of manoeuvrability and the size of the exclusion zone. In this case nevertheless that failure had not been causative of the loss since St Louis Express had heard the message of Furore. The message that did go out from Furore should have contained reference to the tail light buoys as well as the composition of the convoy.