Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
VTS: lifting the fog of legal liability
Russell MacWilliam * and Darryl Cooke †
In November 1998 a Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) system, linked to a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), was established at the port of Cape Town. In January 2000 a collision occurred between two vessels within the Cape Town TSS. The parties who suffered losses as a result of this collision sued the Port Authority on the basis that the VTS operator had failed to provide relevant information, recommendations, warnings and directions to either of the vessels. The case settled during the trial. This article examines the liability of VTS for casualties occurring within an area monitored by it, using the facts of this case to highlight the legal issues which arise.
I. INTRODUCTION
On the afternoon of 21 January 2000 a motor vessel (referred to in this article as “ Vessel D
”) was reaching the end of her voyage from Bahia Blanca to Cape Town. Vessel D
was a bulk carrier, with a gross tonnage of 34,839 tons and she was carrying 60,000 tons of wheat. As the vessel approached Cape Town she entered fog which became increasingly thick. Unbeknown to the master and crew of Vessel D
, a Vessel Traffic Services system (“VTS”), which was linked to a Traffic Separation Scheme (“TSS”), had been introduced at the port of Cape Town on 1 November 1998. The vessel’s Cape Town charts had not been updated since the introduction of the VTS and the TSS.
The VTS was operated by the Port Authority and the VTS Operator (“VTSO”) was an employee of the Port Authority.1
The TSS and the VTS extend a considerable distance beyond the port limits but fall within South African territorial waters. The TSS contains four reporting points for vessels proceeding in or out of the port. A diagram depicting the TSS is set out in Figure 1 below.
* Senior Counsel, practising at the Bar in Cape Town.
† Pupil member of Cape Bar; formerly Attorney, practising as a director at Fairbridges. The authors (together with Advocate M Wragge SC) represented the plaintiff in the case described in this article. The authors wish to thank Captain Terry Hughes FNI FRIN for his comments and assistance in sourcing a number of the publications referred to in the article.
1. The VTSO acted simultaneously as a Port Control officer.
362