A recent decision from the England and Wales Court of Appeal provides useful guidance on how courts are likely to determine whether vessels are in a “head‑on” or “crossing” situation under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (“COLREGs”). Although this is a UK decision, it provides useful guidance on how Canadian courts are likely to approach the issue.
The ruling in Monford Management Ltd. v Afina Navigation Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 251 (“The KIVELI”) rejects rigid, mathematical interpretations of the COLREGs in favour of a practical, common‑sense reading.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
(1) THE VISUAL TEST IS PRACTICAL, NOT GEOMETRIC.
Under Rule 14(b), a head‑on situation is “deemed to exist” if an observing vessel sees any one of the following:
(1) the other vessel’s masthead lights in, or nearly in, a line; (2) both sidelights; or (3) both masthead lights in line and both sidelights.
The Court firmly rejected arguments that these criteria should be tied to a precise geometric arc but declined to decide whether these conditions need to be observed by one or both vessels.
(2) ONCE ESTABLISHED, THE HEAD‑ON RULES APPLY UNTIL THE RISK HAS PASSED.
A head‑on situation does not convert into a crossing situation simply because the vessels’ relative bearings change during the encounter.
(3) “DEEMED TO EXIST” LANGUAGE MAY NOT BE EXHAUSTIVE.
The Court declined to decide whether Rule 14(b) provides the only way to establish a head‑on situation, leaving open the possibility that other factual scenarios (such as vessels traveling on reciprocal or near reciprocal courses) may independently qualify under Rule 14(a).
BACKGROUND: THE COLLISION AND INITIAL TRIAL
The case arose from a collision between two bulk carriers, the KIVELI and the AFINA I, off the south coast of Greece on March 13, 2021. At trial, the court found that the vessels were in a “head‑on” situation under Rule 14 and apportioned fault 80% to KIVELI and 20% to AFINA I. The primary cause was the KIVELI’s decision to make a hard turn to port approximately two minutes before impact, a maneuver the trial judge described as “catastrophic (and negligent)”.
On appeal, KIVELI argued that the vessels were actually in a “crossing situation” under Rule 15, which would have made KIVELI the “stand‑on” vessel with the right of way (potentially shifting liability significantly).
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S KEY RULINGS
Lord Justice Foxton delivered the lead judgment, addressing several significant questions about how the COLREGs should be interpreted.
REJECTING THE GEOMETRIC APPROACH
Rule 14(b) states that a head‑on situation is deemed to exist when a vessel sees another “ahead or nearly ahead” and, at night, “could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights”.
KIVELI argued that these phrases should be defined precisely by reference to Annex I, paragraph 9 of the COLREGs, which specifies visibility cut‑offs for sidelights. Under this interpretation, one vessel would only be “nearly ahead” of another if it fell within a strict 6‑degree arc (3 degrees on either side of the center line).
The Court of Appeal firmly rejected this geometric interpretation for three key reasons:
(1) PLAIN LANGUAGE MATTERS.
Rule 14(b) uses ordinary language (“nearly ahead” and “nearly in a line”) that does not suggest mathematical precision. As Lord Justice Coulson observed, KIVELI sought “a very precise definition of, in the English language anyway, a very loose word”.
(2) NO CROSS‑REFERENCE SUPPORTS THE GEOMETRIC READING.
Unlike Rule 13 (overtaking), which explicitly references specific angles from Rule 21, Rule 14 contains no reference to Annex I’s technical specifications.
(3) THE TREATY’S DRAFTING HISTORY PROVIDES NO SUPPORT.
The preparatory works of the 1972 Convention contain no attempt to link Annex I to Rule 14(b), nor do they suggest any intent to introduce a precise geometric test.
INTERPRETING “AND/OR” ACCORDING TO ITS ORDINARY MEANING
KIVELI also argued that once vessels were close enough for sidelights to be visible, both sidelights had to be seen to trigger Rule 14(b). If only one sidelight was visible, the rule would not apply.
- The Court upheld the literal interpretation of “and/or”. Observing the masthead lights nearly in a line is sufficient on its own to establish a head‑on situation (regardless of whether one or both sidelights are visible).
- Lord Justice Foxton noted that KIVELI’s alternative construction would do “violence to the text” and render the reference to masthead lights “largely superfluous”.
- This interpretation aligns with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in Acacia Ver Navigation Co Ltd v Kezia Ltd (1996), which held that seeing either light configuration is sufficient to trigger the rule.
HEAD‑ON RULES APPLY UNTIL THE RISK HAS PASSED
KIVELI argued that even if a head‑on situation existed initially, it ceased when the vessels’ relative bearings broadened, transforming the encounter into a crossing situation. The Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that once Rule 14 is engaged, it applies until the risk of collision has entirely passed.
- The text implies continuity. Rule 14 contemplates that the rule continues to apply, requiring a course change so that “each shall pass on the port side of the other”. A head‑on situation does not end until this passing maneuver is completed.
- Safety requires certainty. Transitioning between different navigation rules while a collision risk is ongoing would create dangerous uncertainty for mariners.
- Precedent supports this approach. The Court cited Viscount Finlay in the House of Lords case Orduna v The Shipping Controller (1920), who warned that it “would lead to danger and collision in very many cases” if vessels were absolved from a rule before the passing maneuver was completed.
QUESTIONS LEFT FOR ANOTHER DAY
Because the Court resolved the case on other grounds, it declined to address two broader questions: whether Rule 14(a) provides an overarching definition of head‑on situations independent of Rule 14(b), and whether Rule 14(b) can be triggered by the observations of only one vessel. These questions remain open for future litigation.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
The UK Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed KIVELI’s appeal, upholding the 80:20 apportionment of liability in favor of the owners of the AFINA I.
This decision suggests that courts will likely apply the plain language of Rule 14 rather than impose rigid mathematical tests. Mariners and vessel owners should understand that a head‑on situation is not limited to a precise geometric arc, that aligned masthead lights alone can establish a head‑on situation, and that once the head‑on rules are triggered, they govern until the risk of collision has entirely passed.
Author – Reilly M. Dwyer
QUESTIONS ABOUT MARITIME COLLISION LIABILITY?
If you have questions regarding the application of the COLREGs to a collision or near‑miss incident, or are involved in a maritime liability dispute, our maritime practice would be pleased to assist. Please contact us to discuss your matter.
George Roper
604 691 7555
gjroper@owenbird.com
Andrew Stainer
604 374 6235
astainer@owenbird.com
Reilly Dwyer
rdwyer@owenbird.com
Greg Tucker, K.C.
604-691-7553
gtucker@owenbird.com