This case involves an appeal by the plaintiff, Mare Blu Tuna Farm Co Ltd, from a judgment delivered by the Civil Court, First Hall, on 12 January 2016 which rejected a claim for damages following an accident at sea (see CMI166). The case arose from the collision of the Netherlands-registered MV Coral Water with a fish farm owned by the plaintiff, located about four nautical miles off the Maltese coast of Marsascala. The plaintiff argued that its damages were caused by the gross negligence of the vessel. The defendant, through its local agent, argued that it was not at fault, nor was the accident caused by gross negligence or any awareness that the alleged incident was probable. If the Court decided that the defendant had any liability for the incident, the defendant vessel had the right to limit its liability, and since it was less than 2,000 gross tons, it had the right to limit its liability to not more than 1,000,000 SDRs, equivalent to about MLT 485,889.

Held: Appeal upheld.

In its first ground of appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Court of first instance reached erroneous conclusions regarding the use of navigational charts and Notices to Mariners. It states that in respect of the gross negligence which it attributes to the master of the defendant vessel, Hans Becht, it submitted two types of nautical charts, namely the large-scale charts BA 194 and BA 2538. The master himself, while confirming that he relied on other small-scale charts, replied in cross-examination that 'it would be wiser' if he had used charts BA 194 and BA 2538. The plaintiff contends, therefore, that the Court of first instance should never have relied on expert evidence which concluded that the master of the ship did not have to use the large-scale charts, but that it was enough to use the small-scale charts which he actually used.

The plaintiff argued that the Court of first instance set a serious and dangerous precedent which goes against responsible navigation and against reg 27 of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Regulations, which requires that 'nautical charts and nautical publications, such as sailing directions, lists of lights, notices to mariners, tide tables and all other nautical publications necessary for the intended voyage, shall be adequate and up to date'. In this context, the plaintiff also refers to the recommendations made by the UK Hydrographic Office on its website and in its handbook. Captain Becht was navigating blindly in Maltese waters, and was therefore responsible for gross negligence.

All that happened was the result of the master's failure to carry out the necessary checks and assessments before leaving Bunkering Zone 4 in Malta on his way to Turkey. This is regardless of the arguments made by the vessel, which include that the weather had contributed substantially to the accident; the aquaculture area should not have been so close to the bunkering żone; the aquaculture area did not have enough lights as sufficient signs for the vessel; the fish farm did not have suitable navigational marks and radar reflectors; the radar reflectors around the aquaculture area, if in operation, were too low to send an echo signal to the ship's radar in rough seas, etc.

Captain Becht knew that there was an aquaculture area, because he planned his trip to Malta on Chart 2123, on which was printed the aquaculture area in which the incident took place. In the Court's view, this was a crucial mistake that led to an accident that could have been avoided with diligence and professionalism. The fact that Captain Becht switched to Chart 2123 to Chart 176 to 'plot a new position' is no reason to excuse him.

In the light of these considerations, the first ground of appeal will be upheld, and the judgment of the Court of first instance will be set aside due to gross negligence on the part of the defendant vessel.