Owners of Christos Theo vs owners of Aliki

High Court adjudicates on maritime collision between Christos Theo and Aliki

The High Court, Admiralty Division, recently ruled on a complex maritime collision case involving the vessels Christos Theo and Aliki. The case, presided over by Master Davison, revolved around allegations of engine malfunction leading to a near-miss incident.

The defendants, owners of the Aliki, filed for specific disclosure, claiming that a malfunction in the Christos Theo’s main engine or its control system was the root cause of the incident. They argued that the malfunction prevented the vessel from reversing, necessitating the dropping of anchors to avoid a collision, which resulted in damage to the vessel.

The claimants, owners of Christos Theo, denied any malfunction, asserting that the main engine did go astern. However, the evidence, including seven failed attempts to reverse the engine and numerous alarms in the engine control room, suggested otherwise.

Master Davison ruled in favour of the defendants on all three applications: the request for specific disclosure, the application for further information, and the framing of expert evidence issues. The court found that the defendants had demonstrated a prima facie case of engine malfunction, warranting further investigation through disclosure.

The court ordered the claimants to provide documents related to the incident, including reports, maintenance records, and manuals for the main engine, to ascertain whether any factory settings had been altered. The claimants were also required to disclose any prior issues with the engine or its control systems.

The case highlighted the importance of transparency and thorough documentation in maritime operations. The court criticised the claimants for a lack of candour, noting discrepancies between their pleadings and the evidence presented.

In his judgment, Master Davison emphasised the need for expert input to determine whether the engine malfunctioned and, if so, why. The ruling also addressed the procedural aspects of maritime litigation, such as the framing of questions for expert witnesses and the necessity of full disclosure.

Ultimately, the court's decision underscored the complexities of maritime law and the critical role of evidence in resolving disputes. The case serves as a reminder to maritime operators of the importance of maintaining detailed records and ensuring compliance with safety standards.

Learn More

To understand more about maritime collision claims, see BeCivil's guide to Maritime Law.