The Collision Statement of Case ("CSoC") comes in two parts. The first requires a series of binding admissions regarding key features of the collision: the ships involved; drafts, speed, course, cargo and engine power; place and time of collision; when and how the other ship was first seen; and how the party's ship was navigated in response.

Part 2 is written to a particular formula: Part 1 is repeated; it is alleged that the collision was caused by the other ship's negligent navigation; and somewhat formulaic allegations are made about that negligence, rounded off with an incantation of the provisions of the Collision Regulations said to have been offended.

CSoCs are settled "blind", i.e., without sight of the other side's case. The parties only get to see their opponent's CSoC once both (or all) have been filed. The rules previously required no response to another party's CSoC.

Before voyage data recorders ("VDR"), the combined effect of the parties' CSoCs often produced no collision at all – whereas one had most definitely occurred. The principal enquiry at trial was how the ships had been navigated into collision, with limited scope for investigating why. VDRs and AIS have changed all that: how is usually crystal clear, leaving the way clear to investigate the why much more closely, greatly assisted by VDR audio recordings of what was said and audible on each vessel's bridge.

Reforms have recently been made to CPR Part 61, its Practice Direction and Form ADM3 (the CSoC form). The reforms, which apply in all collision actions commenced after 8 April 2023, come in four parts:

  • The existing requirement that electronic track data (which includes audio recordings) be exchanged pre-CSoC has been bolstered by a requirement that, if only one party has such data, it must provide it.
  • A further 8 questions have been added to Part 1, the most interesting of which are:
  • Who was on the bridge for the half hour before collision?
  • A full description of the ship's navigational equipment, whether it was being used and further particulars regarding radar use.
  • The real-time availability of electronic track data.
  • Whether a bridge audio recording exists.
  • Whether the vessel was broadcasting AIS signals and, if not, why not.
  • Part 2 is required to be fuller, covering the sequence of material events precollision, all allegations of causative negligence and other fault, and any other material facts and matters relied on.
  • There must now be a response to the CSoC: defences must be filed within 28 days. Any reply (which is optional) must be served within 21 days of the defence.

These reforms are welcome but will have two related consequences. The timing between exchange of electronic data and filing of CSoCs is too tight for the necessary proper transcription, translation and analysis of bridge audio. Applications to extend time for this may therefore become routine. And the need to have very advanced drafts of the audio transcripts before CSoCs are settled will inevitably substantially increase the front loading of costs in collision actions.

Read full article here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.