On 15 March 1997, the defendant's tanker Erica Jacob (now renamed Niase) came into contact with a terminal located north of Masirah Island off Oman. On 19 October 1999, an action was brought for the damage caused to the terminal.

The preliminary issue was whether the claim was time-barred by reason of art 301 of the Oman Maritime Law (based on art 7 of the Collision Convention 1910), which provided:

1. Lawsuits arising out of a collision shall lapse with the expiry of two years from the date of two years from the date of occurrence of the accident.

2. However the right of recourse referred to in article 295 shall lapse with the expiry of one year from the date of fulfilment.

3. The period provided for in the two proceeding paragraphs shall not apply if the seizure of the defendants' vessel was not possible in the State's territorial waters, where the plaintiff's domicile or his main place of business is located.

The dispute between the parties focused on the scope of the word 'collision', and whether it was apt, as the defendant contended, to encompass any contact between the vessel and another object, whether fixed or moveable, or only, as the claimants contended, any contact between a vessel and another vessel.

Held: The claim is not time-barred.

The true scope of art 301 of the Oman Maritime Law remains uncertain when read in isolation, but on its ordinary and natural meaning was more likely to be referring to any collision between vessels and not to all collisions, including ones involving an impact between a vessel and a terminal.

Article 301 had to be read in its immediate context, namely Pt 1 of Title 6 of the Oman Maritime Law. Part 1 starts with art 292 (based on arts 1 and 13 of the Collision Convention 1910), which reads as follows:

1. If a collision occurs between marine vessel [sic] or between marine vessels and boats of inland waterways, the compensations payable for the damage sustained by the vessels, things and persons on board, shall be settled in accordance with provisions specified under this part…

2. The said provisions shall apply, even if no physical collision has taken place which led to compensating the damages caused by one vessel to another…

This makes it clear that the whole of Pt 1 is focused on the settlement of claims arising out of collisions as defined. This is reinforced by art 293 (based on art 2 of the Collision Convention 1910), which provides that if 'the collision' is the consequence of force majeure 'each vessel shall absorb her damages'; by art 295 (based on art 4 of the Collision Convention 1910), which applies where there is joint fault, in which case the liability of 'each vessel' is to be apportioned; and by art 298 (based on art 8 of the Collision Convention 1910), which provides that a master of a vessel involved in 'a collision' must notify the 'other vessel' of the name of his or her vessel. Indeed, even art 301 expressly refers back to art 295 in furnishing a different limitation period for a contribution claim. The word 'collision' means the same thing throughout Pt 1, namely a collision between two vessels.

It is perfectly apparent that the content of Pt 1 is based on the provisions of the Collision Convention 1910. The Convention provides for a two-year time limit for claims arising out of collisions between ships. A collision between a vessel and a jetty is outside its ambit.

There is thus no statutory time limit imposed on the claimant's claim under Omani law.