The High Court has clarified that a claim under section 46 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 does not require an actual collision between vessels. The court reaffirmed an order made in favour of the plaintiff on 28 October 2016; the follow-up judgment did not state the order’s terms.
In a judgment delivered on 2 November 2016, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern addressed an error in the plaintiff’s counsel’s submissions. After the earlier judgment had been handed down, counsel told the court that references to Article 14 of the Collision Convention of 1910, in both written and oral submissions, should have been to Article 13.
Article 13 extends the Convention to damage caused to another vessel, or to goods or people aboard either vessel, through carrying out or failing to carry out a manoeuvre, or failing to observe regulations, even where no collision took place. The judge said that section 46, insofar as it gives effect to the 1910 Convention, therefore covers claims arising from interactions between two or more vessels that cause damage to a vessel, cargo or other property aboard, or personal injury to someone aboard, without an actual collision.
The judge referred to the earlier decision in *McGuinness v Marine Institute* [2010] 2 I.R. 71, which traced the origins of section 46 to the Maritime Conventions Act 1911. He said Article 13 had not been brought to the attention of the judge in that case. The earlier judgment had also noted that no case involving the 1911 Act or the 1910 Convention without a collision had been cited there.
The court said the corrected reference reinforced its earlier view that a collision was unnecessary for section 46 to apply. It affirmed the order made for the plaintiff on 28 October. The judgment’s stated purpose was to clarify the earlier decision in light of counsel’s corrected submissions.