The George Livanos ran aground and suffered damage in the river Scheldt. The grounding resulted from its own fault, as well as the fault of two other vessels, the Abadesa and the Miraflores. The Abadesa was navigating against the current, while the Miraflores was simultaneously approaching the narrows from the opposite direction. Instead of the Abadesa yielding to the Miraflores, as required, it continued into the mid-channel. As a result of the cross-current, the Miraflores failed to avoid a collision with the Abadesa. The George Livanos was following the Miraflores, and because of its negligence in failing to recognise the existing difficulty and taking action to avoid it, it grounded.

The trial Court heard both cases together and ruled in the first case that both the Abadesa and the Miraflores were at fault and apportioned their liability at two-thirds and one-third, respectively. This decision was not appealed. In the second case dealing with the damage resulting from the grounding of the George Livanos, the trial Judge considered the liability of the Abadesa and the Miraflores as 'one unit', and compared it to the negligence of the George Livanos, concluding that the latter could only recover 50% of the damages.

The trial Judge's 'unit approach' was found to be incorrect, and the majority of the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment: see George Livanos (Owners) v The Miraflores (Owners) and Abadesa (Owners) [1966] P 18 (CMI2275). There was a further appeal to the House of Lords.

Held: Appeal allowed, but only to the extent that the proportion of liability should be held to be assessed at two-fifths for the Abadesa, two-fifths for the George Livanos and one-fifth for the Miraflores.

Lord Pearce: What has been called the 'unit approach' was held to be wrong and the judgment was set aside by the majority of the Court of Appeal on two grounds. First, it does not accord with s 1 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (UK), which requires liability to be assessed 'in proportion to the degree in which each vessel was at fault'. For on the 'unit approach' there is not an assessment of the degree in which each vessel was at fault. Secondly, and in consequence, the trial Judge had assessed at too high a figure the fault of the George Livanos in proportion to the respective individual faults of the Abadesa and the Miraflores.

The majority of the Court of Appeal was correct that the 'unit approach' is wrong. Winn LJ was correct in finding that the liability of each vessel involved must be assessed by comparison of its fault with the fault of each of the other vessels involved individually, separately, and in no way conjunctively. But Winn LJ erred as to the propriety of 'an assessment in respect of each ship of the overall responsibility for the occurrence of the double event of the collision and the partially consequential grounding'. The Judge's task in the second action was to weigh and apportion only the respective faults of the three ships which led to the grounding. The proportions of liability should thus be reassessed at two-fifths to the Abadesa, two-fifths to the George Livanos and one-fifth to the Miraflores. To that extent only, the order of the Court of Appeal will be varied and the appeal allowed.