This was an appeal from a judgment of the Commercial Court of First Instance (2021/40-2022/609).

The plaintiff, Reina Shipping Co, owner of the Malta-flagged Reina 1, alleged that the vessel sank after colliding with the defendant's ferry, Ankara, in the Adriatic Sea on 20 October 2011. Reina 1 had loaded aluminum cargo from Novorossiysk for discharge at Koper (Slovenia) and Bar (Montenegro). The plaintiff claimed USD 2,200,000 for the insured vessel, plus an estimated USD 55,000 for fuel, provisions, and other onboard supplies. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that potential claims from the deceased crew's families, repatriation costs for survivors, and cargo claims were still undetermined. Seeking security for these losses, the plaintiff requested a lien over the Turkish-flagged Ankara and USD 2,255,000 plus interest from the defendant.

The insurer Groupama Sigorta, having indemnified Reina Shipping Co for USD 2,200,000 under its hull insurance, claimed full reimbursement from the defendant, arguing that Ankara's captain misjudged Reina 1's course and executed a faulty manoeuvre, making it solely liable for the collision.

The defendant, Ankara's owner, counterclaimed, asserting that Reina 1 was responsible for the collision. It contended that Ankara had maintained its speed and course per COLREGs, while Reina 1 failed to take necessary avoidance measures. Following the incident, the plaintiff sought and obtained an arrest order against Ankara in Bari, Italy, which was later lifted upon the issuance of a club letter of undertaking. The defendant claimed ongoing losses due to the delay, including repair costs, fuel, freight losses, and classification expenses, seeking TRY 24,675.80, USD 432,534.80, and EUR 151,388.57, plus interest.

In a separate but related action before the 52nd Istanbul Commercial Court of First Instance, Groupama Sigorta asserted its subrogation rights, arguing that Reina 1 was a total loss due to Ankara's fault. Meanwhile, in another case before the 51st Istanbul Commercial Court of First Instance, Ankara's owners sought damages for repairs, fuel, freight loss, and other costs incurred due to the collision, emphasising that Reina 1's crew failed to maintain a proper lookout or take evasive actions.

The defendant denied liability, asserting that Ankara was not at fault for the collision. In response to the counterclaim, the defendant maintained that no negligence could be attributed to its vessel. In the proceedings before the 52nd Commercial Court, the defendant argued that the collision resulted solely from Reina 1's gross negligence and, therefore, it was not liable for the claimed USD 2,200,000 and interest. In the case before the 51st Commercial Court, the defendant raised objections of lis pendens and lack of standing, reiterating that its vessel bore no fault. The defendant contended that Reina 1's improper manoeuvring caused the collision, specifically pointing out that Ankara altered course to starboard eight minutes before impact, while Reina 1 neither changed course nor speed to avoid the incident. Accordingly, the defendant sought full dismissal of all claims.

The 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (2014/1033-2017/328) partially upheld the main and consolidated claims. The Court ordered the defendant to pay Reina Shipping Co USD 19,250 for the non-assigned portion of its claim and Groupama Sigorta USD 560,000 as assignee of the vessel’s insured value. The Court granted a maritime lien on Ankara in favour of both claimants under arts 1235 and 1236 of the abrogated Turkish Commercial Code (No 6762 TCC) [based on arts 2 and 3 of the MLM Convention 1926].

Regarding the counterclaim, the Court ruled that no decision was necessary against Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği Ticaret. The claim against Reina Shipping Co was partially upheld, awarding the claimant USD 92,625, EUR 26,235.72, and TRY 11,289.72. However, the Court found that the statutory lien sought by the claimant could not be practically enforced.

In the consolidated proceedings before the 52nd Commercial Court, the Court awarded Groupama Sigorta USD 560,000, plus interest from 14 December 2011. In the 51st Commercial Court case, the Court reaffirmed the ruling against Reina Shipping Co and awarded the claimant USD 92,625, EUR 26,235.72, and TRY 11,289.72, with interest from 20 October 2011, payable by Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği Ticaret, ensuring no duplication of recovery.

The claimants appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal.

The Regional Court of Appeal (2018/246-2019/90 K) found that under art 1320.1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (No 6102 TCC) [based on art 4.1 of the MLM Convention 1993], the collision-related damages constituted a maritime claim, and the claimant could seek compensation from Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği Ticaret in proportion to Reina 1's fault. The Court rejected the defendant's objection to standing, finding that Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği Ticaret had undertaken the safe management of the vessel. The Court also ruled that as no proper counterclaim had been filed against Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği Ticaret, no decision could be made against it. Addressing liability, the Court reaffirmed that in cases of shared fault in collisions, each shipowner must compensate the other according to their degree of fault. The Court determined that both ships had a duty to monitor collision risks and take necessary measures. Expert reports conclusively found that Reina 1 was at fault, a conclusion supported by criminal proceedings in the 5th Istanbul Criminal Court, which acquitted Ankara's captain of any blame. Based on this, the appellate Court confirmed that Reina 1 bore 65% fault, while Ankara bore 35%. The Ankara’s detention following the collision was due to the incident itself rather than any deficiencies in the vessel. The Court upheld the trial Court's approach to damages, confirming that actual losses and lost income due to the collision were compensable, including salvage, repairs, crew costs, and loss of hire. The appeal was dismissed on the merits.

The claimants subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (2019/1943-2020/5691) set aside the appellate judgment, holding that inconsistencies in the expert reports warranted further scrutiny. The Court ruled that a new expert assessment by maritime collision specialists was necessary to determine the precise apportionment of liability. As such, the Court overturned the decision and remanded the case for reconsideration, without addressing the damages-related appeals filed by Reina Shipping Co and Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği.

Following the Supreme Court of Appeal's remand, the trial Court re-evaluated the case, thereby determining that the conditions for invoking force majeure under r 2 of the COLREGs were not met, meaning neither vessel could rely on this defence. The Court found that Reina 1's third officer failed to assess the risk of collision properly and did not alert the captain in time, as required by r 2/1 and Bridge Control Checklist B-13 of the STCW 78. It was also found that Ankara’s captain failed to take preventive measures such as adjusting speed or course to avoid the collision. The vessels first made VHF radio contact only nine minutes before impact, at a dangerously close range of 2.46 miles, mistakenly believing they were on parallel courses. The Court ruled that a collision avoidance agreement had not been reached before the incident, necessitating the application of relevant COLREGs.

The court apportioned liability as follows: Reina 1 was 60% at fault under rr 5, 7.a, 8.a-b, 15, 16, and 17.d of the COLREGs for failing to maintain proper lookout, assess risk, and take evasive action. Ankara was 40% at fault under rr 5, 7.a, 7.b, 7.d.i, 8.a, 17.a.ii, and 17.b of the COLREGs for not taking adequate precautions despite the risk.

Regarding damages, Reina 1 was deemed a total loss, with a market value of USD 1,600,000 at the time of the collision. The ship also carried onboard fuel valued at USD 55,000, making the total loss USD 1,655,000. Ankara incurred repair costs, fuel expenses, loss of hire, classification fees, and crew-related costs, totalling EUR 40,362.66, USD 142,500, and TRY 17,362.80.

Based on the apportionment of fault: Ankara’s owner, Denizciler Turizm ve Denizcilik, was entitled to recover 60% of its losses from Reina 1's owner, Reina Shipping Co, amounting to USD 85,500, EUR 24,217.60, and TRY 10,417.68. Reina 1's owner could recover 40% of its losses from Ankara’s owner, totalling USD 640,000 for the ship’s value and USD 22,000 for fuel.

Groupama Sigorta, which had insured Reina 1 for USD 2,200,000, had compensated Reina Shipping Co and acquired its rights through subrogation. The Court ruled that Groupama Sigorta could claim USD 640,000 from Denizciler Turizm ve Denizcilik, with interest from 14 December 2011. However, since the shipowner retained rights over fuel losses, the Court awarded USD 22,000 to Reina Shipping Co.

The Court upheld the maritime lien on Ankara to secure the awarded claims. The Court also ruled that Ankara’s owner could seek reimbursement from Reina 1's commercial operator, Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği. However, since a separate counterclaim had been filed against Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği, no further decision was necessary.

The decision was appealed to Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal focused on alleged errors in liability apportionment and procedural issues. Reina Shipping Co and Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği argued that Armador Gemi İşletmeciliği was neither the shipowner nor the operator and should not have been held liable. They also contended that the fault assessment was flawed, relying on speculative points rather than concrete evidence. Groupama Sigorta argued that inconsistencies in the expert reports were not adequately resolved, and that the ruling failed to assess whether a navigational agreement had been established between the vessels. The calculation of legal fees was also contended. The owner of Ankara disputed the fault ratio, arguing that the assessment was arbitrary and that its vessel bore no responsibility.

The Supreme Court upheld the trial Court's ruling, confirming the liability apportionment and rejecting most of the appeal grounds. However, the Court found an error in the calculation of attorney fees, ruling that the amount awarded should not exceed the limit set by legal fee regulations. Accordingly, the decision was partially overturned only in relation to attorney fees, which were corrected without necessitating a retrial. The remaining claims were dismissed, and the judgment was finalised.