This case involved a collision in the Strait of Dover off the coast of France but in the UK's EEZ on 8 April 2013 between the French-flagged fishing vessel Loïc-Lucas, owned by Rabasse, and the cargo vessel Ambassadeur, owned by the defendants. As a result of this collision, the Loïc-Lucas sank. The plaintiffs, Rabasse and its insurer, Société d’Assurance Mutuelle des Armateurs et Professionels de la Mer (Samap), claimed from the defendant owners of the Ambassadeur, who disputed that the Loïc-Lucas had been struck by the Ambassadeur.

Held: The defendants are jointly and severally liable for 75% of the damage attributable to the collision. The issue of the quantum of damage alleged by the plaintiffs as a result of the collision has yet to be determined.

The Collision Convention 1910 and the COLREGS apply to the plaintiffs' collision claim. In addition, Dutch law applies. Liability from collision constitutes a 'non-contractual obligation' within the meaning of the EU Rome II Regulation (864/2007). Rome II has a universal character, and therefore applies in principle. There is no reason to consider that the collision has a manifestly closer connection with France or any other State under Rome II. Since Rome II does not provide any indication of the additionally applicable law, art 10:164 of the DCC must be applied, which stipulates that to the extent that liability in respect of a collision on the high seas is not covered by Rome II, it is governed by the law of the State in which the claim is brought (in this case, the Netherlands).

The standard for determining the question of liability, based on arts 2, 3, and 4 of the Collision Convention 1910 and art 8:543 ff DCC, lies in the answer to the questions whether: (a) it is sufficiently plausible that the collision took place; (b) the collision was caused wholly or partly by the fault of the Ambassadeur and; (c) the defendant(s) are to be regarded as the owner(s) of the Ambassadeur.

After weighing up the evidence, the Court answered questions (a) and (b) in the affirmative. When weighing up the mutual fault of the two ships, it concluded that the Ambassadeur was 75% and the Loïc-Lucas 25% to blame for the collision.

As to question (c), the defendants' argument was that Mr Ter Stege had acquired the Ambassadeur as a private individual. However, after examining the relevant documents, the Court held that Mr Ter Stege had rather acquired the vessel in his capacity of sole managing partner of TSS Ambassadeur CV (TSS). By the deed of transfer, TSS acquired ownership of the vessel, which thus became part of the limited partnership's separate assets.

Regarding the question of collision liability, legal ownership (and not economic ownership) is decisive. The Court therefore concluded that TSS, as the owner of the Ambassadeur, can be held liable for the damage resulting from the collision. Since TSS is a limited partnership, and the general partner of such a partnership is jointly and severally liable alongside it pursuant to art 19.1 DCC, Mr Ter Stege is also liable for the damage resulting from the collision.