At about 12.30 on 16 May 2014, the Meghna Princess, owned by Janata Flour & Dal Mills Ltd (the plaintiff), and the Dream Star, owned by the defendant, collided off Singapore. A VHF conversation, initiated by the Meghna Princess, took place between the vessels at 12.25. At first, the Meghna Princess requested Dream Star to slow down. The Meghna Princess would increase speed and join the lane of the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), so that Dream Star could then pass astern. A short moment later, the Meghna Princess changed its mind and communicated that it was reducing speed and asked Dream Star to speed up so it could pass the bow of Meghna Princess, which The Dream Star agreed. The vessels collided port to starboard at 41 degrees. There was a dispute on whether the crossing rule or overtaking rule applied which would affect the apportionment of liability between the vessels. The plaintiff submitted there was a crossing situation within the meaning of r 15 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS) ie Meghna Princess was the stand-on vessel and Dream Star was the give-way vessel. The defendant submitted that there was an overtaking situation within the meaning of r 13 of COLREGS ie Meghna Princess was overtaking Dream Star and so was the give-way vessel. Article 4 of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Collision between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910), which apportions liability between the vessels according to the degree to which each vessel was at fault in causing the collision, is given effect in Singapore via s 1(1) of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (MCA).

Held: The liability between the parties would be 70:30 in favour of the defendant as the Meghna Princess was more to blame. Prior to the crossing situation, the Meghna Princess failed to keep a proper lookout. Her automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA) was not used to acquire or track the Dream Star. Hence, a risk of collision arose. However, there was still time to avoid the collision. There was a crossing situation from 12.25 onwards, with the Dream Star as the give-way vessel and Meghna Princess as the stand-on vessel. There was uncertainty as to the status and responsibilities of the vessels and navigational action or inaction, which conflicted with the requirements of COLREGs or of good seamanship. The uncertainty arose because the Meghna Princess initiated VHF communications and gave contradictory directions to the Dream Star, which did not limit the risk of collision but enhanced it and brought about a dangerous close quarters situation. It would have been more appropriate to avoid collision by appropriate navigation according to the COLREGS and relying on good seamanship. As a stand-on vessel, the Meghna Princess’s most important duty was to maintain course and speed. In addition, the Meghna Princess could have taken a different route instead of transiting through the Eastern Boarding Ground B to get to the TSS. Furthermore, the Meghna Princess knew that the Dream Star was heading to the Eastern Boarding Ground B, but instead of reducing speed, increased its speed, which breached the requirements of COLREGS and of good seamanship. Hence, the primary fault was attributed with Meghna Princess. As for the Dream Star, it contributed to the creation of a risk of collision when it failed to take into account the Meghna Princess’s navigation up until 12.25. It did not keep a proper lookout and was not responsive to the developing close quarters situation. However, some of its actions were justified by an earlier overtaking situation concerning another vessel.