Monford Management Ltd (The Owners of The Kiveli) v Afina Navigation Ltd (The Owners of The Afina I) [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty)

By Peter Thornton MBE Senior Associate, Solicitor Advocate and Master Mariner, Hill Dickinson LLP

Published November 2025

Access the full article via the link below:

Click here to view PDF

Introduction

On 16 May 2025 the English Admiralty Court handed down its judgment in The Kiveli. 1

The judgment sets out one of the most detailed analyses of Rule 14, the "Head-on situation" of the Collision Regulations (Colregs) to be found in the authorities and academic texts. It also comes soon after the decision in The Apollo, 2 which touched upon the same issues.

Mariners apply Rule 14 day-in, day-out, all over the world and Rule 14 has been in effect for nearly 50 years now (the 1972 version has been in force since 1977). The relatively limited number of collision cases that have reached the English courts arguably demonstrates that a mariner's understanding of Rule 14 serves them well. Mariners are particularly assisted by the fact that under Rule 14(c), in case of doubt it can be assumed that a head-on situation exists and can act accordingly.

However, aside from the obvious general interest in the court's interpretation of the Colregs, it is also notable that Bryan J in The Kiveli reached different conclusions to those of Teare J in The Apollo but, at the same time, expressed the view that his conclusions were not inconsistent with those in The Apollo. Obvious questions, therefore, arise as to how the head-on situation (Rule 14) is to be interpreted legally and practically in light of these two judgments.

The key finding in The Kiveli is that a head-on situation can now factually apply (ie not just when a vessel is in doubt) when a vessel can see two masthead lights (subjectively nearly in line and nearly ahead) but importantly, only one sidelight.

This article discusses the legal and practical implications of this finding, and we opine on whether this was the correct conclusion with reference to the IMO travaux préparatoires to the 1972 Colregs Convention. In the authors' opinion, the decision in The Kiveli:

• widens and confuses what might be said to have been a mariner's general understanding as to when the head-on situation factually applies without doubt;

• appears to go against Teare J's finding in The Apollo; and

• appears to go against the intentions of the drafters of Rule 14, as per the travaux préparatoires.

The travaux préparatoires (the Travaux) in this case are the official IMCO3 member states' submissions that led to the finalisation of the 1972 Colregs Convention. While one would not necessarily have expected their contents to have been before the court at first instance in a collision liability trial, their content brings important context to the conclusions in The Kiveli on the interpretation of the intention of the drafters of the head-on situation. Their importance to the court's decision is, as explained in JTI Polska SP zoo v Jakubowski,4 that the court can use the Travaux as an aid to construction where they either "clearly and indisputably point to a definite legislative intent" or in any event, confirm the meaning under article 31 of the Vienna Convention.

For mariners and claims handlers, this is important because the previous interpretation (as set out in The Apollo) of when a head-on situation factually existed (which takes nothing away from the important practical application of assuming, in case of doubt, that it does under Rule 14(c)) was based on both vessels being in a position to see both sidelights. This allowed Rule 14 to apply equally to almost all power-driven vessels because, save for those under 7 m proceeding under 7 knots,5 all such vessels have sidelights with the same technical arcs of visibility6 and were, therefore, subject to the same basic visual test.

The Kiveli, on the other hand, has found that a head-on situation can now factually exist if a vessel can see only one sidelight but considers the masthead lights to be nearly in line. However, only vessels over 50 m in length require two masthead lights, so if The Kiveli now provides that there is no longer a requirement to see both sidelights (at least when using two masthead lights) to differentiate between a head-on situation and a crossing situation, there is no longer a clear visual division between the two Rules. This also creates a disparity between different sizes of vessels (because vessels under 50 m are not required to have two masthead lights so must still rely on sidelights). Alternatively, if this wider interpretation is to apply to vessels under 50 m as well, then where is that division and how are all mariners to identify it?

This article focuses on the constructional issues of Rule 14 and not on the apportionment of liability in The Kiveli (Kiveli was found 80 per cent to blame and Afina I, 20 per cent). However, the authors comment on the different actions open to the vessels had this been a crossing situation, which do not appear to have been considered in full by the court. This is important in light of the fact that Bryan J found that his apportionment of liability would have been the same whether it was a crossing situation or a head-on situation.

Access the full article via the link below:

Click here to view PDF