Nautical Challenge Ltd vs Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited

Background

The High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court, presided over by Sir Nigel Teare, delivered a consequential judgment on 5 April 2022, following a substantive judgment handed down on 8 February 2022. The case involved a maritime collision between the vessels ALEXANDRA 1 and EVER SMART, with liability initially apportioned 70:30 in favour of ALEXANDRA 1.

Offers and Costs

The case had a protracted history, with multiple settlement offers made by the Owners of ALEXANDRA 1, which were not accepted by the Owners of EVER SMART. The court was tasked with determining the costs associated with the litigation and appeals, following the substantive judgment. The Owners of ALEXANDRA 1 sought costs from the Owners of EVER SMART, arguing that their initial offer was not improved upon by continuing litigation.

Legal Framework

The court referred to CPR 61.4, which outlines the consequences of offers to settle in collision claims, and CPR 44.2, which provides the court with discretion regarding costs. The court also considered the Supreme Court's power to award costs, as outlined in its rules.

Supreme Court Costs

The court concluded that the Owners of ALEXANDRA 1's offer made in June 2020 to settle the appeal to the Supreme Court was effective in providing costs protection. Consequently, the general rule that costs follow the event was displaced, and the Owners of EVER SMART were ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Owners of ALEXANDRA 1 after the offer was made.

Court of Appeal Costs

Regarding the costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court determined that the Owners of EVER SMART should be awarded 40% of their costs, reflecting the issues on which they were successful. The court emphasised the need for certainty in costs protection, noting that a further offer should have been made after the trial to protect against the costs of an appeal.

Stay of Execution

A stay of execution was granted to the Owners of EVER SMART, pending the determination of their application for permission to appeal. The court considered the risk of injustice to both parties, ultimately finding a greater risk to EVER SMART if a stay were refused.

Permission to Appeal

The court refused permission to appeal on three grounds. It found no real prospect of success in challenging the assessment of evidence, the factors considered in the re-apportionment of liability, or the apportionment itself. The court's detailed reasoning underscored the complexity of maritime collision cases and the importance of thorough judicial assessment.

Conclusion

This case highlights the intricacies involved in maritime collision litigation, particularly concerning costs and liability apportionment. The court's decisions on costs protection and the necessity of clear offers provide valuable guidance for future cases.

Learn More

For more information on maritime law and collision claims, see BeCivil's guide to Maritime Law.