This was a claim brought by Niko LLC, the bareboat charterer of the Victoriya, owned by SK Merkuriy LLC, against Alisa LLC, the owner of the Vityaz. On 23 March 2018, in the course of the mooring of the Vityaz, it collided with the starboard side of the Victoriya. As a result of this collision, damage was caused to the Victoriya.

The Commercial Court of Primorskiy Region found in favour of the defendant. The Court of first instance found that the claimant had failed to prove the fault of the defendant in the 'allision'. The claimant appealed.

The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF) on collisions are derived from the Collision Convention 1910, to which Russia is a party.

Held: The appeal is dismissed.

The first argument of the claimant was that the Court of first instance mistakenly applied the term 'allision' to the relevant situation, when the correct term would be 'collision'. This resulted in an improper interpretation of the applicable rules. The Court of Appeal found that, under art 310(1) of the MSC RF, the provisions of the MSC RF cover the different circumstances in which collisions may occur, including where one of the vessels involved in the incident was moored ('allision'). Therefore, in this case, it did not matter which terminology the Court of first instance used, since the same legal norms applied.

Under art 311 of the MSC RF, if the collision is accidental, is caused by force majeure, or if the cause of the collision is left in doubt, the damage shall be borne by the party that suffered them. Under art 312 of the MSC RF, if the collision is caused by the fault of one of the vessels, the vessel at fault bears the damage. The Court of Appeal stated that it follows from the rules above that the grounds for liability for the collision are the existence of damage, the fault of the wrongdoer, the unlawful conduct of the wrongdoer, and the causation link between the wrongdoer’s actions and the damage.

Under art 315 of the MSC RF, no parties are presumed to be liable if the opposite is not proved.

The investigation of the cause of the incident was conducted by public authorities in accordance with the domestic and international rules. Fault on the part of the master or crew of the Vityaz was not found. The owner of the Victoriya also failed to provide enough evidence to prove the fault of the Vityaz. In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal since the owner of the Victoriya failed to prove grounds for imposition of liability upon the owner of the Vityaz.

[Judgment confirmed on cassation appeal: see the Judgment of the Commercial Court of the Far Eastern District in Case No A51-14547/2018 dated 24/05/2019.]