Case of dispute over damage compensation arising from ship collision filed by Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd. against Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau of Changjiang River and Hiro Shipping Inc. etc

Updated：2014-12-22 Views：3419 

GUANGZHOU MARITIME COURT OF THE PEOPLE??S REPUBLIC OF CHINA



Civil Judgment

(2007)Guang Hai Fa Chu Zi No.127



Plaintiff			??	Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd.

Address			:	Room 1388, 13/F, Labor Building, Hong Hua Yuan, Nanshan District, 

				Shenzhen, Guangdong, P.R.C.

Legal Rep.		:	Liang Jian, Chairman of the Company

Agent ad litem	:	Yang Yunfu, attorney-at-law from Yang & Lin Co. Law Firm

Agent ad litem	:	Zhu Weikang, attorney-at-law from Yang & Lin Co. Law Firm





Defendant 1	:	Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau of Changjiang River

Address	:	No.9, Jiangbian Road, Xiaguan District, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P.R.C.

Legal Rep.		:	Yuan Yakang, Director of the Bureau

Agent ad lite	m	: 	Chen Longjie, attorney-at-law from Shenzhen Office of Greenleaf Law Firm 

Agent ad lite	m	:	Zhao Jinsong, attorney-at-law from Shenzhen Office of Beijing Guantao Law Firm 



Defendant 2		:	Hiro Shipping Inc.

Address			:	80 Broad Street, Monrovia, the Republic of Liberia

Legal Rep.		:	Yusuke Hashiguchi, Director and CEO of the Company

Agent ad litem	: 	Chen Xiangyong, attorney-at-law from Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm

Agent ad litem	:	Cao Yanghui, attorney-at-law from Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm



Defendant 3		:	Yuma Maritime S.A.

Address			:	53rd Street, Urbanizacion Obarrio, Torre Swiss Bank 16th Floor, Panama, 

				the Republic of Panama

Legal Rep.		:	Masaki Hara, Director and Vice CEO of the Company

Agent ad litem	: 	Chen Xiangyong, attorney-at-law from Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm

Agent ad litem	:	Cao Yanghui, attorney-at-law from Wang Jing & Co. Law Firm



With respect to the case of dispute over damage compensation arising from ship collision filed by the Plaintiff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., against the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau of Changjiang River (hereinafter referred to as ?°Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau?±), and the Defendant, Hiro Shipping Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Hiro?±), and the Defendant, Yuma Maritime S.A. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Yuma?±), this Court, after accepting this case, formed a collegial panel in accordance with law, and called upon the parties hereto to carry out pre-trial evidence exchange respectively on 22 January 2008, 19 March 2008 and 23 April 2008. This Court convened a pre-trial conference respectively in 3 June and 4 June, and conducted an open trial on the present case respectively in 6 August, 7 August, 8 August and 12 August. The following persons have carried out pre-trial evidence exchange and attended the pretrial conferences, and have appeared before this Court to participate in the court trial: Yang Yunfu and Zhu Weikang, agent ad litem of the Plaintiff; Chen Longjie and Zhao Jinsong, agent ad litem of the Defendant Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau; Chen Xiangyong and Cao Yanghui, agent ad litem jointly entrusted by the Defendant Hiro and the Defendant Yuma. The following persons have appeared before this Court to accept the examination: Tang Qiujin, the accountant applied by the Plaintiff; Lu Daonan, Huang Guangming and Xu Jiangping, the accountants applied by the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau; Zhang Jin, the accountant applied by the Defendant, Hiro, and the Defendant, Yuna S.A.. The trial of this case is hereby closed.



The Plaintiff alleged that: on 14 March 2007, collision occurred at Lingding Channel of Zhujiang River among M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± owned by Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± owned by Hiro and bareboat chartered by Yuma, and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± owned by the Plaintiff, which caused serious damage to M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±. Serious violation of rules and wrongful operations by M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± had given rise to such collision accident, and therefore in accordance with law the three defendants shall bear the responsibility over 90% for this collision accident. The Plaintiff requested this Court to order the three defendants to compensate the Plaintiff: 1. repair fees for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB1, 508,942; 2. painting fee for repairing M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB25, 371.00; 3. survey costs for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB34, 906; 4. incidental fee, costs of on-site monitoring, costs of pollution prevention and cleanup in a total amount of RMB337,126; 5. loss of hire for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB1,267,318.73; 6. cost of appraisal on loss of hire for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB27,000; 7. during the repair period for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, the maintenance fee in an amount of RMB88,501.21, the fixed cost in an amount of RMB890,348.77, and management fee in an amount of RMB117,090.27; 8. survey and salvage fee paid for M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± in an amount of RMB16,000, survey fee on damage in an amount of RMB59,000, supervision fee on repairs in an amount of RMB172,250, and examination and consultation fee on the bills in an amount of RMB102,850; 9. survey fee paid for M/V ?°SUMIRE?± in an amount of RMB12,200; 10. travelling fees, lawyer fee and telecommunication fee etc. incurred due to the handling of accident by the Plaintiff in an amount of RMB100,000. The total amount of the aforesaid fees was RMB4, 758,904.20. The three defendants also shall pay to the Plaintiff the interest on the aforesaid loss (the interest shall be calculated at the annual interest rate of 6.12% from 15 March 2007 to the date when the compensation is completed paid off). The litigation fee, fees on application for maritime preservation and application for enforcement shall be borne by the three defendants.



The Plaintiff has provided the following evidence within the period for adducing evidence: 1. Business License; 2. Certificate of Nationality, Certificate of Ownership, Interim Classification Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate, International Tonnage Certificate, International Load Line Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate, International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate, Interim International Ship Security Certificate, Certificate of Compliance, Certificate of Exemption, and Minimum Safe Manning Certificate of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 3. Crew List of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, Certificates of Competency of Crew onboard M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, Seaman??s Record Books of Crew onboard M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 4. Marine Accident Report; 5. Deck Logbook, Engine Logbook, Deck Bell Book, Engine Bell Book of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 6. Repair Contract, Repair Price List, Repair Work Confirmation, Invoice and Payment Voucher of the repair fees; 7. Invoice and Payment Voucher of painting; 8. Survey Report and its Chinese translation version, Invoice and Payment Vouchers on the survey costs; 9. Settlement Agreement; 10. Invoice and Payment Vouchers on Incidental Fee, Cost of On-Site Monitoring, Costs of Pollution Prevention and Cleanup; 11. Survey Report of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 12. Verification Report of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, Special Audit Report of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, Invoice and Payment Vouchers on Appraisal costs; 13. Certificate to prove the repair time of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 14. Letter of Authorization; 15. Service Charge and Invoice hereto of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, Service Charge and Invoice hereto of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, and Service Charge and Invoice hereto of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± (4 groups).



The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, alleged that: 1. the pileup collision accident occurred among M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was not two independent accidents but an accident involving several ships; 2. the occurrence of this ship collision accident was due to the fault of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± owned by the Plaintiff and that of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± which is owned by Hiro and bareboat chartered by Yuma, and Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau shall not bear any responsibility for this collision accident; 3. the loss claimed by the Plaintiff was not reasonable. The Plaintiff did not provide any effective evidence to prove the reasonableness of the alleged loss, such as the repair fee, loss of hire etc. In addition, the amount of the loss alleged by the Plaintiff was obviously exaggerated. In summary, the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, requested this Court to reject the litigation claims raised by the Plaintiff against the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau. The litigation fees for this case shall be borne by the Plaintiff.



The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, has provided the following evidence within the period for adducing evidence: 1. Certificate of Nationality, Classification Certificate for Hull, Certificate of Vessel??s Inspection, Certificate of Load Line, Certificate of Oil Pollution Prevention, Certificate of Tonnage, Certificate of Seaworthiness of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±; 2. Certificate of Competency of Master Chen Wu, Certificate of Competency of Master Chen Xiping, Certificate of Competency as 2nd Officer of Yu Gang, Certificate of Competency as Duty Officer of Chen Chunhai, Certificate of Competency as Chief Engineer of Qian Ming, Certificate of Competency as Second Engineer of Dai Yongqing; 3. Permits for operation above and under water, Notice to Mariners; 4. Log Books; 5. Accident Report, Table of Investigations on Marine Accidents, Sea Chart;



The Defendant, Hiro, and the Defendant, Yuma jointly alleged that: I. Hiro was not the competent defendant of this case. With regard to this collision accident, it was the bareboat charterer who should bear the collision liability. Hiro was the registered owner of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and Yuma was the bareboat charterer of this vessel. The flag state of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± is Panama. Therefore, according to law of Panama, no registration is required for bareboat chartering, i.e. such bareboat chartering shall have the same legal effect as that with registration as required by the other countries. Accordingly, Hiro should not bear any collision liability; II. The liabilities borne by each vessel were as follows: 1. There were two collisions involved in this case. Prior to the occurrence of the first collision, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was operating along the inward channel so that her maneuvering and giving way capability was limited. However, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± misestimated M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± as an outbound vessel and mistakenly and abruptly altered her course to port substantially when she was very close to M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, which led to a close quarters situation and made the first collision unavoidable. As a result, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± quickly moved astern and stood across the channel blocking the channel completely. When M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was aware of the occurrence of the first collision, she was already very close to M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± so that M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±??s crossing of the channel directly caused the another close quarter situation which made the second collision unavoidable. The conducts of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± is the primary cause of the aforesaid two collisions. Accordingly, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± should bear major liability hereof; 2. M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± expressly agreed that M/V ?°SUMIRE?± overtook from the port side of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± as the overtaken vessel should have kept steady course. Even though she moved astern for the purpose of avoiding collision, she failed to stop engine in time and blocked the channel violating the agreement and navigation rules. The fault of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was the primary cause of the second collision. Therefore, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± should bear major liability for the second collision and bear secondary liability for the whole accident; 3. M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±??s abrupt crossing of the channel directly led to the close quarters situation with M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. However, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± complied with the agreement and navigation rules and avoided collision with her best endeavor, even though she was still unable to avoid the second collision. M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was free of any fault and should not bear any liability for the whole accident. Even though she should bear part of liabilities, such liability should be no more than the proportion of 10%. III. Each vessel involved in the collision shall be liable in proportion to the extent of her fault. It was legally groundless for the Plaintiff to claim for joint and several liabilities against the three defendants. IV. The losses claimed by the Plaintiff were unreasonable. As per the appraisal of the Respondent, the reasonable repair costs should amount to RMB 30, 000, 000; 2. The operation loss calculated by the Plaintiff is not reasonable. It should be calculated on the basis of the complete hire period including the time of repair and maintenance; 3. The salvage fee in sum of RMB 8, 030, 000 as claimed by the Plaintiff was obviously far more than an reasonable amount which should be no more than RMB 5, 000, 000; 4. The charges for dealing with the case, survey fee and accounting and auditing fee should be apportioned equally; 5. There was no effective evidence proving the losses of other materials and components. Therefore, it was impossible that all the materials and components were lost or damaged due to the sinking of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±; 6. There is no effective evidence proving the rationality and necessity of purchasing clutch and oil for trial voyage. In conclusion, the Defendant, Hiro, and the Defendant, Yuma, requested this court to order the Plaintiff to bear the major liability, and the Plaintiff should bear corresponding liability as per the extent of fault, to overrule the claims filed by the Plaintiff against Hiro and Yuma. The litigation fees shall be borne by the Plaintiff.



The Defendant, Hiro, and the Defendant, Yuma, have provided the following evidence within the period for adducing evidence: 1. Certificate of Registry, International Tonnage Certificate, International Load Line Certificate, International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Radio Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Equipment Certificate, Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate, Certificate of Minimum Manning, Safety Management Certificate, and Statutory License for Radio of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 2. Bareboat Charter Party, Time Charter Party; 3. Deck Logbook, Engine Logbook, Bell Book and Pilot Card of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 4. Crew List of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 5. Table of Investigations on Maritime Accident; 6. Damage Survey Report of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 7. Legal Opinion presented by Panamanian lawyer.



This Court has obtained the following evidential materials from Guangzhou MSA: 1. Collision Accident Investigation Report issued by Guangdong MSA; 2. Maritime Traffic Accident Report (two pieces) and Maritime Accident Report of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 3. Deck Logbook, Engine Logbook, Deck Bell Book, and Engine Bell Book of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±; 4. Interview records taken by Guangzhou MSA of some crews of ?°Yue Dian 2?±, including interview records of Master Jiang Feng, of second officer Cao Junlong, of third officer Qiu Weizhong, of chief engineer Chen Wenqiang, of first engineer Xu Weihe, of third engineer Li Huaxu (two pieces), of A/B Huang Jingqing, of A/B He Jianming; 5. Logbook, Engine Logbook and Maritime Traffic Accident Report of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±; 6. On-the-spot Accident Investigation Records on M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± produced by Guangzhou MSA; 7. Interview records taken by Guangzhou of some crews of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, including interview records of chief officer Chen Xiping (two pieces), of second officer Chen Jiesong, of second officer Yu Gang, of chief engineer Qian Ming, of first engineer Dai Yongqing, of A/B Chen Haichun, of A/B Xielei, of machinist on duty Wang Daohai, of machinist Qi Fei; 8. Interview records taken by Guangzhou MSA of Song Gentong, the project manager of Guangzhou Seaward Passage Project of Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau; 9. Certificate of Register, Safety Manning Certificate, and Certificate of Competency of crews of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 10. Marine Accident Report of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 11. Ship Manoeuvring Parameter List and Side View of Bow Structure of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±; 12. Average Survey Report of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± produced by Classification society; 13. Interview records taken by Guangzhou MSA on pilot Zhao Bingxun (two pieces); and 14. Interview records taken by Guangzhou MSA of the Master (two pieces), of the third officer, of the chief engineer, and of the A/B of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±.



Based on the joint application filed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants, this Court organized parties to this case to watch VTS video at Guangzhou MSA, and to copy the sound recordings of conversations, and the written records thereof were submitted by the parties to this case. : At the pre-trail conference, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau believed that the written record of the sound recording of conversations in VTS submitted by the defendant Yudean Co. is comparatively accurate and confirmed the authenticity of the said written record.



Upon hearing and cross-examination, and in combination of the evidences and opinions on cross-examination submitted by parties to the case and statement of accounts, the Collegial Panel ascertains the following facts through investigation:



I. Particulars of Ships involved in the Accident



M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±: Gross Tonnage 2,691 tons, Net Tonnage 807 tons, Deadweight Capacity Indication 2,457 tons, Length overall 84.75M, Breadth 15M, Depth 5.5M, Full Load Draft 4.5M; Kind of Vessel: Dredger; Material of Shell: Steel; Navigating Area: Offshore; Number of Watertight Transverse Bulkhead: Six; Port of Registry: Nanjing; Signal Letters: BTYS; Number of Registry: 060102000138; Classification society: CCS; Kind of Main Engine: Diesel Engine/6L28/32; Horse Power of Main Engine: 1,320KW??2; main engine manoeuvring being controlled by the navigation bridge. Where and when built: Hudong Zhonghua Shipbuilding Co.,Ltd, completed on October 26, 1998.



M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±: Gross Tonnage 36,559 tons, Net Tonnage 23,279 tons, Deadweight Tonnage 70,182 tons, Length overall 225M, Breadth 32.26M, Depth 18.3M, Speed of Vessel 14 Knots. King of Vessel: Bulk Carrier; Material of Vessel: Steel; Port of Registry: Shenzhen; Signal Letters: BRWL; IMO No.: 9077240; Classification society: CCS; Kind of Main Engine: Internal-combustion Engine/SULZER 6RTA62; Horse Power of Main Engine: 8,826KW; main engine manoeuvring being controlled by the engine room; Where and when built: Japan, SUMITOMO HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD., completed on July 14, 1994. The Defendant Yudean Co. is the registered ship owner and operator of the ship.



M/V ?°SUMIRE?±: Gross Tonnage 14,089 tons, Net Tonnage 7,023 tons, Deadweight Tonnage 17,732 tons, Length overall 163.6M, Breadth 26M, Depth 13.4M; Departure Draft: fore 5.78M, aft 6.82M; Kind of Vessel: Container Ship; Material of Hull: Steel; Speed of Vessel: 18.5 Knots; Port of Registry: Panama; Signal Letters: 3FTA7; IMO No.: 9153070; Kind of Main Engine: Internal-combustion Engine/SULZER 6RTA62; Horse Power of Main Engine: 8,826KW; main engine manoeuvring being controlled by engine room; Classification society: NK (Nippon Kaiji Kyokai); Where and When built: Japan, IMABARI SHIPBUILDING CO. LTD., completed on October, 1997. The Plaintiff Hiro is the registered owner of this ship. The Plaintiff Hiro and Yuma concluded a Bareboat Charter and a Purchase Contract on March 24, 1997, therein it was agreed that the Plaintiff Yuma hired M/V ?°SUMIRE?± in the way of bareboat charter, however, no registration of bareboat charter of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± had been conducted.



II. Details of the Accident

At 1910 hrs on 14 March 2007, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± departed Guangzhou port in ballast condition, bound for Huang Ye Port. The draft at departure was: fore 3.4m, after 6.3m. Master, Jiang Feng, was in charge of commanding the vessel, the Third Officer was in charge of the engine bell operation and assisted in look-out, while two A/B took turn to operate the rudder and assisted in look-out. At 2228 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± reported to VTS Guangzhou through VHF that she had passed Humen Bridge, and later this vessel entered into Lingding Channel and sailed full ahead. At 2335 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± passed Buoy No.36. When passing between Buoy No.33 and No.34, the Master, by observing the radar, detected a vessel (namely M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±) sailing before M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± along the channel. At that time M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was 4nm away from M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± with the speed of about 3knots. The Master judged that M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was an outbound dredger. The monitoring materials of VTS Guangzhou indicated that at 2340 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± had already passed Buoy No.34, with the course at 162??, the speed of 16.5knots, and the position at the middle of the channel alongside the red buoy. The Master, by observing the radar, detected another ship (namely M/V ?°SUMIRE?±) sailing at the middle of the channel, with the distance of about 6.5nm away from M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± and the speed of about 15knots. At 2344 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± just passed Buoy No.32, with the course at 163?? and the speed of 17knots, sailing alongside the red buoy. At 2345 hrs, the A/B took the shift, one person in charge of rudder operation and the other assisting in look-out. At about 2347 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± just passed Buoy No.30, and the course and the speed of the vessel did not change. At 2348 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± contacted M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± through VIF for three times to communicate on the overtaking. M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± made a reply to M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± and agreed M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± to overtake her from the port side. At about 2349 hrs, the Master of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± order the vessel to make hard to port, and reported through VHF that she was turning to port. At 2350 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± passed Buoy No.28 with the speed of 17knots. At about 2351 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, on the position of the back side of the starboard draft marks at the bow, collided with the bow of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± almost at a right angle. The GPS position of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± at the time of collision was: 22??31??N, 113??44??.5E, heading about 136??, and speed at about 10knots. After collision, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± clashed out of the channel, and grounded at the eastern side of the channel at about 0003 hrs in 15 March. The GPS position of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± at the time of grounding was: 22??30??.7N, 113??45??.E. At about 0600 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was relieved from grounding by taking the chance of tide and under the assistance of two tugs.



At 2320 hrs on 14 March 2007, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was carrying out dredging operation at Lingding Channel, the Second Officer, Yu Gang and the A/B went to the bridge for taking the duty. At 2325 hrs, the Second Officer ordered the A/B in charge of harrow operations to lift up the harrow, and sailed the vessel out of the eastern side of the channel, checked and cleaned the harrow tools for shift taking. After completion of shift turning outside the channel, the Second Officer, Yu Gang, who took the duty, was in charge of the manoeuvring of the vessel and the dredging operation. One A/B was in charge of rudder operation, and the other A/B was in charge of harrow operations. Two sets of ARPA radars at the bridge platform had been turned on, with the presentation of comparative movement, and the heading upward, and with the measurement distance separately set up at 1.5nm and 3nm. One set of depth sounder, AIS, GPS, and one set of DGPS, and 4 sets of VHF had been turned on. 2 sets of VHF were set up at Channel 9, while the other 2 sets of VHF were set up at Channel 16. The sailing lights had been turned on, displaying the sidelights on the starboard side and the port side, and the fore and after masthead lights, and stern lights, and vertically displacing three all-round lights of red, white and red colors. The two illuminative lights at deck had been turned on. At 2339 hrs, the Second Officer instructed M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± to sail into the channel, and carried out operations along the channel at the place between the Green Buoy No.25 and No.27. Soon after the vessel carried out operation within the channel, the Second Officer first saw a coming vessel sailing near Buoy No.36 alongside the red buoy, displaying red and green side lights, and fore and after masthead lights. In accordance with the monitoring record of VTS Guangzhou, at about 2343 hrs, the course of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 321?? with the speed of about 1.5knots. At 2346 hrs, the course of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 341?? with the speed of about 2knots. At 2348 hrs, the course of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 342?? with the speed of about 2knots. At this time M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± receive the calling from M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± through VHF, and later the Second officer made a reply to M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, agreeing M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± to overtake her from the port side. M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± immediately lifted up the harrow, and stop the main engine to observe the movement of the coming vessel. At about 2349 hrs, the course of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 342?? with the speed unchanged, and at this time, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± called M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± through VHF to inform that she was turning to port. The Second Officer on duty, Yu Gang, after knowing the coming vessel had already taken the action to turn to port, immediately ordered to move slow astern both then full astern both. Soon after the orders to move astern were given, at 2351 hrs, the starboard side at the bow of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± collided with the bow of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, with the collision angle at about 90??. The two vessels immediately separated from each other after collision, and the bow of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± turned to starboard and went astern to the port side of the entering channel. At about 2354 hrs, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± collided with an approaching vessel, M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, in the middle between the red buoy No.26 and No.28., to the edge of the channel. The bow of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± clashed into the part slightly before the midship at the starboard side of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. The heading of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± at the time of collision was about 40??, and the vessel was moving astern at the speed of about 7knots.



At 1245 hrs on 11 March 2007, M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, laden with the container No.822TEU (7,282.7tons of cargos), departed from KOBE, Japan, and proceeded to Xinnansha Port in Guangzhou. At 2210 hrs in 14 March, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± arrived at Guishan Anchorage in Guangzhou for the pilot to embark the vessel. The pilot, Zhao Bingxun, embarked the vessel. After acquiring information on the engines and rudders from the Master, the pilot discussed with the Master and then decided to instruct the vessel to enter into the port by making the main engine stand by with the speed of rotation at 100RPM, and the speed of 15knots. The Master told the pilot that the maximum draft of the vessel was 6.8m. The pilot thought the channel was comparatively clean, and hence started to pilot the vessel to enter into Nansha Port, while the Master, the Third Office and one A/B in charge of rudder operation were all at the bridge. The pilot, Zhao Bingxun, gave instructions on the operation of the engine bell and the rudder to pilot the sailing, and the Third Officer was in charge of engine bell operation and assisted with look-out, while the A/B was in charge of rudder operation. Two sets of radar, GPS, AIS had been turned on. The pilot used the ARPA radar to observe the situation by alternating the range between 1.5nm and 3nm. The speed of the vessel was maintained at about 15knots. At 2240 hrs, the Master left the bridge. At about 2340 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was near Buoy No.21 and No.22, with the speed of about 14knots and the course at 351??. The pilot saw a vessel in front near Buoy No.25 and No.26, placing three lights with the color of red, white and red in a vertical line. The pilot got the information through AIS that the name of the vessel in front was M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. The course of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was 340??, and the speed was very slow, while M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 3.2nm away from M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. The pilot also detected through radar M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± near the position between Buoy No.31 and No.33, sailing towards the exit and alongside the red buoy at the main channel and with the distance of about 6.5nm away from M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. At about 2342 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± passed Buoy No.21 and No.22, with the course at 352?? and the speed of 15.1knots. The pilot visually saw that there was no obvious change in the sailing movement of both M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±. At 2344 hrs, the pilot ordered M/V ?°SUMIRE?± to lower the speed. The monitoring material of VTS Guangzhou showed that the speed of the vessel was about 14knots. The Master immediately went to the bridge after he felt that the speed of the vessel had changed. At 2347 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was sailing near Buoy No.23, and the course was changed into 343??, and at this time the speed was about 14knots, while M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was about 1.7nm away from M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. The pilot considered to come across first with M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, which was sailing toward the exit, and then passed M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± from her port side. At about 2349 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± informed M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± through VHF of her overtaking intention, and requested M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± to maintain her course. M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± replied and expressed her agreement. Soon after the VHF communication, the pilot saw the bow of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± obviously turn to port, and the pilot found that there was a collision risk between M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. At the same time, the pilot heard through VHF that M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± kept changing her order between hard to port and hard to starboard. The pilot felt that M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was quite nervous. At that time, the distance between M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was about 1.2nm. VTS Guangzhou had reminded M/V ?°SUMIRE?± to slow the engine for 4 times within one minute, and to pay attention to the vessel sailing towards the exit and the dredger in front. At about 2351 hrs, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± collided with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, while M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± clashed out of the channel. At such time, the course of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was 343??, with the speed of 15.3knots, and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± had already approached Buoy No.26, about 0.8nm away from the position where the aforesaid two vessels collided, while M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± did not stop moving astern, and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± intended to overtake M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± from the stern of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. At about 2352 hrs, when finding M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± moving astern sideling at a high speed towards the port side of the entering channel, the pilot immediately called M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± through VHF, telling her not to move astern, and the pilot also ordered M/V ?°SUMIRE?± to make port 10??. When M/V ?°SUMIRE?± turned her course to 320??, the pilot found M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± still moving astern, and then he ordered M/V ?°SUMIRE?± to make hard to port, later immediately changed the order to make hard to starboard, and to stop the main engine. At about 2353 hrs, the distance between M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was already less than 0.2nm. At about 2354 hrs, the bow of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± clashed into the part slightly before the starboard midship of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, with the collision angle of about 70??. The heading of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± at the time of collision was about 330??, and the speed was about 10.2knots. According to the monitoring record of VTS Guangzhou, the position where the two vessels collided was 22??31??N, 113??44??.4E. After collision, the two vessels did not separate from each other immediately and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± dispatched two cables to M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± to fasten the two vessels. At about 0040 hrs in 15 March, water came into the fore hold and the engine room of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. At about 0108 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± grounded. At 0410 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± separated from M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. At 0535 hrs, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± grounded at the western side of Buoy No.24 under the assistance of two tugs, with the grounding position at 22??28??.5N, 113??43??.5E. At about 0730 hrs, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± got refloated.



At the time of the occurrence of the accident: overcast, visibility 4 to 5nm, easterly wind with the force of 4, ebb tide, and current speed about 1.5knots.



After occurrence of the accident, Guangdong MAS carried out investigations thereto in accordance with the law, and issued the Investigation Report on the Collision Accident among M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, which presented the following opinions: this was an accident involving three vessels respectively with two collisions under a special circumstance; for the first collision between M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± shall bear the major liability, while M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± shall bear the minor liability; for the second collision between M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°?±SUMIRE, M/V ?°?±SUMIRE shall bear the major liability, while M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± shall bear the minor liability;



III. Losses alleged by the Plaintiff



After occurrence of accident, at 1600hrs on 17 March 2007, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± berthed at Guangzhou CSSC-OCEAN-GWS Marine Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ?°Wenchong Shipyard?±) for damage repair. On 26 March 2007 the damage repair was completed, and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± departed from the shipyard. With respect to the losses claimed by the Plaintiff regarding the collision accident under the present case, the collegial panel ascertains as follows:



1.	Repair fees of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the Damage Survey Report on M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± issued by Guangdong Marine Engineering Consulting and Survey Company, Repair Contract, Repair Price List, Repair Work Confirmation, Invoice and Payment Voucher of the repair fees etc. as evidence. The repair fees listed on the Repair Price List and the Invoice of the repair fees was in an amount of RMB1, 508,942. The reasonable repair fees suggested by the Damage Survey Report on M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± were in an amount of RMB1, 502,710.00. The Defendants, Hiro and Yuma, considered that the repair fees alleged by the Plaintiff was not reasonable, and they provided the survey report issued by China Marine Service Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ?°CMS?±), claiming that the reasonable repair fees should be in an amount of RMB810.000. The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau agreed with the challenge put forward by the Defendants, Hiro and Yuma. The collegial panel holds that: M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± visited Wenchong Shipyard for repair after occurrence of the accident involved in this case, and the Repair Price List and the Invoice of Repair fees issued by Wenchong Shipyard can prove that the Plaintiff has already effected the payment of the repair fees in an amount of RMB1, 508,942. Guangdong Marine Engineering Consulting and Survey Company is qualified to carry out appraisal, and according to the appraisal done by this Company, the fee in an amount of RMB1, 502,710.66 was relevant to the accident involved in the present case. The Survey Report issued by CMS suggested that the reasonable amount of the repair fees should be in an amount of RMB810, 000. However, this survey report did not deny the items needed to be repaired under the accident. This report only raised questions on the reasonableness of charges on these items, and pointed out that RMB2, 556 had been double charged. Considering that the Plaintiff had already paid the repair fees to Wenchong Shipyard, it shall be ascertained that the repair fees arising out of the damage sustained by M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± caused by the accident involved in this case should be in an amount of RMB1, 502,710.66, and after deducting the fee which had been double charged, the repair fees should be in an amount of RMB1, 500,154.66.



2.	Painting fee for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the invoice, the duplicate of the invoice, the receipt of delivery, and the electronic transfer voucher etc. as evidence to prove the painting fee for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± in an amount of RMB25, 371.22. The amount of the painting fee listed in the invoice and the electronic transfer voucher was RMB25, 371.22. The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, did not recognize such fee, and alleged that the ship repair was repair on the damaged steel plate, while the painting work was only collateral, and therefore the painting fee shall not be borne by the owner. The collegial panel holds that: Article 7 of supply of materials under the Repair Contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Wenchong Shipyard provides that in principle, Party B (namely Wenchong Shipyard) shall be responsible for dealing with the materials needed for the repair; the material which is in lack shall be dealt with by both parties through negotiation. Considering that the Plaintiff did not provide relevant evidence to prove that a new agreement on the supply of paint and the payment of the painting fee had been concluded between the Plaintiff and Wenchong Shipyard, therefore such fee is not admitted by this collegial panel.



3.	Survey fee for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



The survey fee as claimed by the Plaintiff was in an amount of RMB34, 906. The Defendants, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, Hiro and Yuma do not have any dissension to this fee, and this survey fee is admitted by this collegial panel.



4.	Emergency handling fees on emergencies, monitoring, pollution prevention and cleanup etc.  



The Plaintiff had submitted the following evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had paid the fees on cleanup and pollution prevention and the tug fees for salvage in a total amount of RMB337, 126: Settlement Agreement concluded by the three defendants with Guangzhou MSA, invoices respectively issued by Guangzhou Port Pearl River Pollution Prevention Co., Ltd., Huangpu Huixing Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou Port Group Co., Ltd. The three defendants do not have any dissension to the aforesaid fees, and proved that the total amount of such fees arising out of the accident involved in this case was RMB1, 011,378. Each party had paid the average amount of RMB337, 126. The collegial panel holds that: the Settlement Agreement concluded among the Plaintiff, the three defendants and Guangzhou MSA specified that such fees were prepaid under the circumstance that the liability proportion borne by each party had not been ascertained. Therefore, such fees shall not be deemed as ascertainment on the proportion of the collision liability, and the aforesaid payment would not affect each party hereto to claim compensation against each other according to the proportion of the collision liability finally ascertained. Considering that such fees was incurred from the actions taken to deal with the emergencies such as salvage, cleanup, pollution prevention, and monitoring etc., while the grounding of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was caused by the collision between M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, therefore, such fees shall be borne by each party according to their respective liability proportion under the collision accident between M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?±.



5.	Loss of hire for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the appraisal report issued by Guangdong Huashen Accounting Firm as evidence to prove the loss of hire in an amount of RMB1, 267,318.73. Tang Qiujin, a C.P.A., appeared in court to accept the examination. The appraisal report had carried out examination and review according to the Voyage No.1 to No.4 operated by M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± after her departure from the shipyard upon completion of repairs, and this report ascertained that the daily average net profit for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was RMB105, 904.96; According to the Certificate proving the repair time of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± issued by Wenchong Shipyard and the Deck Logbook, this appraisal report ascertained the time for calculation on the loss of hire sustained by M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was 11.9625 days. The collegial panel holds that: Article 10 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court regarding Damage Compensation on Property involving in the Trial of the Cases of Ship Collision and Ship Touch, in case of partial damage to the vessel, the repair period shall be limited to the reasonable period necessary for the actual repairs, including the reasonable time necessary for contact, docking and survey; the loss of hire is generally calculated as the average net profit of four voyages, two before the collision and two after; if no two voyages before and after the ship collision can be taken as reference, the loss of hire shall be calculated as the average net profit of other corresponding voyages. Since M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was a newly-purchased vessel, the collision accident occurred during the first voyage and no two voyages before and after the collision can be taken as reference, therefore it was in compliance with the aforesaid provision for the accounting firm to carry out the audit according to the first four voyages operated by M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± after her departure from the shipyard upon completion of repairs. Tang Qiujin, the C.P.A., appeared in court to accept the examination, and had gave reasonable answers to the questions respectively raised by each party. The accounting firm and the auditors issuing this appraisal report were qualified, the evidence and bases on which this appraisal report was based were sufficient, and the procedures were in compliance with law. Therefore this appraisal report is admitted by this collegial panel, ascertaining that the daily average net profit of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was RMB105, 940.96, the claimable period for loss of hire was 11.9625days, thus the loss of hire caused by the ship collision was RMB1, 267,318.73.



6.	Appraisal fee on loss of hire of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



In order to prove that it has paid the appraisal fee on loss of hire in an amount of RMB27, 000, the plainitff submits the invoices and the electronic transfer voucher issued by Guangdong Huashen Accounting Firm. Such fee is admitted by the collegial panel. 



7.	Maintenance fee, fixed cost, and management fee during the repair period for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the invoices and the electronic transfer voucher issued by Guangdong Huashen Accounting Firm as evidence to prove the maintenance fee in an amount of RMB88, 501.21, the fixed cost in an amount of RMB890, 348.77, management fee in an amount of RMB117,090.27 during the repair period for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±. The collegial panel holds that: in accordance with Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court regarding Damage Compensation on Property involving in the Trial of the Cases of Ship Collision and Ship Touch, compensation on partial damage to the ship includes the assistant fees and the maintenance fees etc. It was legally well-founded for the Plaintiff to request for the fixed cost, management fee and the maintenance fee, in addition to the net profit. According to the appraisal report which has been admitted, the maintenance fee for M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± during the period of suspension of navigation caused by the accident involved in the present case was RMB88, 501.21. The appraisal report ascertained that after completion of repairs on M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, the time for the voyages No.1 to No.4 was 72.51days; the amount of the fixed cost was RMB5, 396,797.44, and the amount of the maintenance fee was RMB709, 735.86. M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was a newly-purchased vessel, and it is reasonable for the appraisal report to examine and review the fixed cost and the maintenance fee in accordance with the operation of the voyages No.1 to No.4 after accident. Therefore, it is ascertained by the collegial panel that: the daily fixed cost of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was RMB74, 428.32, and the daily management fee was RMB9, 788.11; the total amount of the fixed costs was RMB890, 348.77, and the total amount of the management fees was 117,090.27 during the repair period. 



8.	Survey and salvage fee, survey fee on damage, supervision fee on repairs, examination and consultation fee on the bills paid for M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the Service Charge and Invoice hereto issued by Guangdong Marine Engineering Consultation Survey Co., and the Letter of Authorization issued by the Plaintiff to PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited, Guangzhou Branch, Huangpu Sub-branch (hereinafter referred to as ?°PICC Huangpu Sub-branch?±) as evidence, to prove the survey and salvage fee in an amount of RMB16,000, the survey fee on damage in an amount of RMB59,000, the supervision fee on repairs in an amount of RMB172,250, and the examination and consultation fee on the bills in an amount of RMB102,850 paid for M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. The total amount of the aforesaid four items of fees listed in the Service Charge and Invoice hereto was RMB350, 100. The Letter of Authorization issued by the Plaintiff dated 16 March 2007 stated that the Plaintiff entrusted PICC Huangpu Sub-branch to handle every matter regarding the damage survey on the three vessels involved in the present case, any and all fees incurred therefrom would be prepaid by PICC Huangpu Sub-branch, and then settled when carrying out the insurance indemnity. The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, raised dissension, alleging that the Plaintiff was not entitled to claim such compensation, because the entrusted person was an insurance company, and such fees shall be the operating fee of the insurer. The collegial panel holds that: according to the invoices provided by the Plaintiff, and based on the fact that the Plaintiff did have provided in other case a survey report on M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± under the accident, although the fees claimed by the Plaintiff did have actually arise, the Plaintiff failed to prove these fees had been actually borne and paid by the Plaintiff. Such fees were not the expenses necessary to be paid by the Plaintiff for the dispute under the present case, and therefore such fees are not admitted by the collegial panel.



9.	Survey fee paid for M/V ?°SUMIRE?±



The Plaintiff had submitted the Service Charge and Invoice hereto issued by Guangdong Marine Engineering Consultation Survey Co., as evidence to prove the survey fee paid for M/V ?°SUMIRE?± in an amount of RMB12, 200. The collegial panel holds that: according to the invoices provided by the Plaintiff, and based on the fact that the Plaintiff did have provided in other case a survey report on M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± under the accident, although the fees claimed by the Plaintiff did have actually arise, Such fees were not the expenses necessary to be paid by the Plaintiff for the dispute under the present case, and therefore such fees are not admitted by the collegial panel.



10.	With respect to the travelling fees, lawyer fee and telecommunication fee etc. incurred due to the handling of accident by the Plaintiff in an amount of RMB100, 000, the Plaintiff failed to provide relevant evidence. Therefore, such fees are not admitted by the collegial panel.



In summary, the losses sustained by the Plaintiff include the repair fees in an amount of RMB1, 500,154.66, survey fee in an amount of RMB34, 906, loss of hire in an amount of RMB1, 267,318.73, appraisal fee in an amount of RMB27, 000, the maintenance fee in an amount of RMB88, 501.21, the fixed cost in an amount of RMB890, 348.77, the management fee in an amount of RMB117, 090.27 during the repair period. The total amount of the aforesaid fees was RMB3, 925,319.64 (excluding the emergency handling fees).



On 20 March 2007, this Court rendered a civil ruling ((2007)GHFBZ No.30-2) in accordance with the application filed by the Plaintiff for pre-trail preservation, to arrest M/V ?°SUMIRE?± berthed at Guangzhou port. The Plaintiff paid to this Court the application fee in an amount of RMB5, 000 and the enforcement fee in an amount of RMB10, 000. After the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, provided the guarantee in an amount of RMB8,000,000 issued by China Reinsurance (Group) Co., this Court rendered a ruling to release M/V ?°SUMIRE?±.



On 3 September 2007, against the application of the defendants Hiro and Yuma, this Court rendered a civil ruling ((2007)GHFCZ No.258) to permit them to constitute the limitation fund for maritime claim, which is in the amount of 2,436,363 special drawing right (equal to RMB28,133,228.86), plus the interest calculated as per the loan interest rate of the flow capital at the corresponding period issued by the People??s Bank of China from the date of the occurrence of the accident to the date of establishment of the fund. In 25 September, the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, provided to this Court, the guarantee issued by China Reinsurance (Group) Co. on the aforesaid limitation of liability fund for maritime claims. On 31 October, this Court rendered a civil ruling ((2007)GHFCZ No.127) according to the application filed by the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, to refund the guarantee in an amount of RMB8,000,000 issued by China Reinsurance (Group) Co..



All members of the collegial panel believe that this case is a dispute over damage compensation arising from ship collision. Due to that the collision happened in China, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 273 of the Maritime Code of the People's Republic of China, laws of the People??s Republic of China shall be applied to deal with the substantive dispute. During the trial, parties to the case also agreed that laws of the People??s Republic of China shall be applied to deal with the dispute. 



M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was sailing outward alongside the channel in ballast condition while M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was conducting dredging operation as sailing inward alongside the channel at low speed, and the vessels were sailing in opposite directions along their respective starboard side, in a head on situation. With three all-round lights being hanged vertically, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was a ship with limit maneuvering capacity. M/V ?°SUMIRE?± laden with 7,282.7 tons of cargos was sailing inward along the channel after M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, and when the pilot discovered M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± after M/V ?°SUMIRE?± entered the irradiation scope of the taillight of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, she still sailed at the speed of 14 to 15 knots, and the circumstance of overtaking had been formed between the two ships, under which M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was the overtaking ship and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was the overtaken ship.



When sailing outward along the channel, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± should have used sight, hearing and all other effective means suitable for the environment and situation of the time to maintain proper lookout so as to make sufficient assessment on the situation and the risk of collision. However, the said ship failed to maintain the proper lookout, and when she sailed between the 33# and the 34# buoy, the master discovered M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± which was sailing ahead of her by radar but mistook her as a dredger sailing in the same direction and required to ?°overtake?± her, and thereby caused the collision. Such should be the main reason for the collision. Since M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was sailing within the channel, where the density of ships was large and the environment was complicated, she should have sailed at safe speed so as to adopt proper and effective actions for preventing the collision so that she could stop the main engine within the distance suitable for the environment and situation at that time. However, the ship did not use safe speed but still sailed at the high speed of 17 knots after she discovered M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and when the distance between the two ships was shortened, with the result that, after the close-quarter situation having been formed, she failed to stop the main engine within safe distance. After the head-on situation being formed between her and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± should have exercised good seamanship and actively and timely adopted proper measures to prevent collision so that both the ships might sail within safe distance. However, due to M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±??s neglect of lookout and misjudgment and her wrongful alteration of course to port side by hard-a-port for overtaking M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± as she was sailing at high speed, close-quarter situation was formed between the two ships, which finally led to the collision accident. The above-mentioned acts of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± is in violation of Articles 5, 6, 8 and 14 of International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ?°Regulations for Preventing Collision?±).



Since M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± was conducting dredging operation along the channel where ships were crowded, her operation ability was limited, therefore, she shall take full advantage of all effective means to strengthen her lookout, watch the movement of entering and departing ships and keep communication and contact with them to understand their real intentions. Especially for those vessels sailing in her vicinity, she should take necessary precautions to avoid any collision with them. However, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± did not maintain normal lookout, and without finding out the specific position of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± which was communicating with her on VHF, she recklessly mistook M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± as a ship sailing inward after her and agreed the ship to ?°overtake?± her on her port side, thus misleading M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± to further believe that both ships were in the situation of ?°overtaking?±. When the close-quarter situation arose as M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± turned to port to ?°overtake?± the ship, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± failed to use good seamanship, and actively and timely adopted correct preventing measures to prevent collision, but just stopped engine and then reversed engine only when the two vessels were extremely close to each other and it was too late to prevent the collision. The above-mentioned acts of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± is in violation of Articles 5 and 8 of Regulations for Preventing Collision. 



As a overtaking ship, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± shall perform the obligation of giving way, and shall take full advantage of all effective means to maintain proper lookout and keep a close eye on the movement of the overtaken ship and the changing of ship positions so as to make sufficient assessment on the situation and the danger of collision. During the overtaking, she shall sail at safe speed, especially when she overtook other ships at narrow channel and shall take into good consideration of the situations of crowded ships and complicate circumstances, and have the overtaking speed under control so as to adopt proper and effective collision preventing actions when danger of collision emerged and to stop the main engine within appropriate distance at the time. However, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± failed to maintain proper lookout or safe speed, and at about 2349 hrs, soon after she communicated with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± on VHF coordinating the overtaking, the pilot had discovered that M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± was turning to port and that there was danger of colliding with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, and VTS Guangzhou had warned her to slow down the engine and to pay attention to the ship and the dredger sailed outward before her for four times, however, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± did not pay enough attention thereto and failed to make full assessment of the danger of collision that may exist but still believed that it was able to overtake the ship and the dredger sailed before her and kept sailing at the speed of 15knots to overtake M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, thereby she failed to take the measures such as stopping engine or slowing down in ample time to reduce the speed, and finally led to the collision between her and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± . This should be the main reason for the accident. When M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± collided with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was 0.8 nm away from the position of collision. According to the environment at the time of the collision, if M/V ?°SUMIRE?± had adopted the collision-prevention measures such as stopping engine or moving astern in a prompt way, she would have prevented the collision between her and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± or have brought the loss of collision to the least. However, M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was so confident that she believed she might overtake M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± on the port side, so she still sailed at high speed when she was obstructed by M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± as the latter ship moved to port after by adopting measures of moving astern for the purpose of avoiding M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, and adopted measures of turning to port for the purpose of overtaking M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± on her port side. When she was in immediate danger, her adoption of collision-prevention measures such as hard starboard and stopping engine was useless for preventing the collision, so she finally collided with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and brought serious damage to M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. The above-mentioned acts of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± are in violation of Article 5, 6, 8 and 13 of Regulations for Preventing Collision. 



In order to prevent her collision with M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± adopted measures such as stopping engine and moving astern, which is instinctive behavior for preventing collision and gives little cause for criticism. However, after M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± overtook her stern subsequent to the collision between them, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± shall be aware of the danger of collision with M/V ?°SUMIRE?± which was overtaking her from her port side as she continued to retire, so at that time, she shall adopt effective measures such as stopping engine and moving ahead to stop the main engine so as to prevent her further moving astern, and she shall pay special attention to the avoidance of her moving astern to the left back of the channel which may obstruct the overtaking route of M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. As M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± paid all attention to how to keep clear of M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± without giving due consideration to the serious consequence that may emerge as she adopted the measure of moving astern, she failed to take actions in favor of preventing collision such as stopping engine and moving ahead so as to maintain her position, which results in the moving astern of the ship to the left back of the outward channel and finally leads to her collision with M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. The above-mentioned acts of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± are in violation of Articles 8 and 17 of Regulations for Preventing Collision.



The two collisions among the three ships are two independent but related accidents. In the second collision accident, though M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± did not directly collided with M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, she did lead to the close-quarter situation between her and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± due to her default in adopting the measure of turning to port to overtake M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±. To prevent her collision with M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± adopted prevention actions such as stopping and moving astern to retire to the left back of the outward channel, thereby caused her collision with M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. Therefore, there is indirect relationship between the two collision accidents, that is, the first collision is one reason of the second collision and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± shall also bear the minor responsibility for the second collision.



When M/V ?°SUMIRE?± was overtaking M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± along the entry of the channel as M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± turned to port by adopting hard aport, the close-quarter situation between M/V ?°SUMIRE?± and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± had not yet formed, and M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± just turned left for the purpose of overtaking M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± but not for avoiding M/V ?°SUMIRE?±. Therefore, the overtaking action of M/V ?°SUMIRE?± has no consequence on the first collision accident and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± did not have to bear responsibility for the first collision. 



The Investigation Report on the Collision Accident among M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?±, M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± issued by Guangdong MSA confirms that M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± shall shoulder the major responsibility for the first collision, and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± shall shoulder the minor responsibility for the first and the second collisions, and M/V ?°SUMIRE?± shall shoulder the major responsibility for the second collision. Though both the Plaintiff and the Defendants Hiro and Yuma challenged the above-mentioned liability apportionment, they failed to present evidence to overturn the above-mentioned verdict. Taking into consideration the degree of fault of each ship in operating and collision preventing, the Collegial Panel ascertains that, M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± shall shoulder 80% responsibility for the first collision and 5% percent responsibility for the second collision, and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± shall shoulder 20% responsibility for the first collision and 10% percent responsibility for the second collision, while M/V ?°SUMIRE?± shall shoulder 85% responsibility for the second collision.



In accordance with Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Some Issues regarding the Trial on Cases of Dispute over Ship Collision, the compensation liability arising out of the ship collision shall be borne by the owner of the ship. The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, is the registered owner of M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, and therefore shall bear the collision liability given rise by M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± to compensate the Plaintiff for the losses incurred therefrom. The total amount of the losses sustained by the Plaintiff due to the collision accident was RMB3,925,319.64, and according to the aforesaid liability proportion respectively borne by M/V ?°YUE DIAN 2?± and M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?±, the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, shall compensate the Plaintiff for the losses in an amount of RMB785,063.93 and the interest thereof, and the interest shall be calculated as per the loan interest rate of the enterprise flow capital at the corresponding period issued by the People??s Bank of China from the next day of the date when the accident occurred, namely from 15 March 2007, to the payment date decided by this Judgment.



With respect to the handling fees on emergency, monitoring, pollution prevention and cleanup etc. in a total amount of RMB1,011,378, according to the liability proportion borne by each party under the collision accident between M/V ?°HANG JUN 11?± and M/V ?°SUMIRE?±, the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the amount of RMB50,568.90, the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, shall be responsible for the amount of RMB101,137.80, while the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, shall be responsible for the amount of RMB859,671.30. Since each party hereto had already paid RMB337, 126, therefore the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of RMB286, 557.10 and the interest thereof (the interest shall be calculated as per the loan interest rate of the enterprise flow capital at the corresponding period issued by the People??s Bank of China from the next day of the date when the accident occurred, namely from15 March 2007, to the payment date specified herein).



With respect to the aforesaid emergency handling fees in an amount of RMB286,557.10 and the interest thereof which shall be paid by the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, to the Plaintiff, since this Court had rendered a civil judgment ((2007)GHFCZ No.259), ordering that the Plaintiff under the present case shall compensate the Defendant, Hiro, for the loss in an amount of USD16,758.90 and the interest thereof, and the loss in an amount of USD8,244.54 and the interest thereof for the Defendant, Yuma, the total amount of which was USD25,003.44 and the interest thereof. The aforesaid debts borne by the parties to each other shall be setoff. Considering that the currencies for the two kinds of debts were different, the amount of USD25,003.44 payable by the plaintiff to Hiro and Yuma shall be converted into RMB according to the exchange rate between RMB and USD of 1:7.742 on the next day of the occurrence of the accident, namely 15 March 2007. 



Article 9 of the Provisions of the Supreme People??s Court on Some Issues regarding the Trial on Cases of Dispute over Ship Collision provides that with respect to the compensation claim for the expenses arising from floating, removal and demolition of the submerged, damaged, stranded or abandoned ship and cargo on board resulted from ship collision or from making them harmless, the party liable shall not enjoy the limitation of liability for maritime claims according to Chapter XI of the Maritime Law. In accordance with the aforesaid provision, the emergency handling fees claimed by the Plaintiff did not fall into the category of limitable creditor??s right, and therefore the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, are not entitled to limit their liability for the plaintiff??s such claim. 



In summary, in accordance with Article 169(1) and (2), and Article 170 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, the judgment is rendered as follows:



1.	The Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, shall compensate the Plaintiff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., the amount of RMB785,063.93 and the interest thereof (the interest shall be calculated as per the loan interest rate of the enterprise flow capital at the corresponding period as published by the People??s Bank of China from 15 March 2007, to the payment date decided by this Judgment);



2.	The defendants, Hiro and Yuma, shall jointly repay the Plaintiff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., the accident emergency handling fees in an amount of RMB286,557.10 and the interest thereof (the interest shall be calculated as per the loan interest rate of the enterprise flow capital at the corresponding period as published by the People??s Bank of China from 5 March 2007, to the payment date decided by this Judgment). 	After offset between the aforesaid repayment and the debt owed by the Plaintiff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., to the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, under the civil judgment ((2007)GHFCZ No.259), the remaining debt owed by the defendants, Hiro and Yuma to the Plainitff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., shall be compensated without using the limitation fund constituted by Hiro and Yuma before this court;



3.	Other litigation claims put forward by the Plaintiff, Guangdong Yudean Shipping Co., Ltd., are overruled.



The litigation fee is RMB44,271, of which, the amount of RMB34,301.95 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the amount of RMB7,303.27 by the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, while the amount of RMB2,665.78 by the defendants, Hiro and Yuma. The amount of RMB9, 969.05 shall be refunded to the Plaintiff from the litigation fee it prepaid. The defendants, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, Hiro and Yuma, shall pay the litigation fee respectively due to them to this Court. The application fee for pre-litigation preservation and the enforcement fee in a total amount of RMB15, 000 shall be borne by the defendants, Hiro and Yuma. The defendants, Hiro and Yuma, shall directly pay the application fee for pre-litigation preservation and the enforcement fee to the Plaintiff, and this Court will not refund such fees to the Plaintiff.



The aforesaid obligation on money payment shall be fulfilled within 10 days upon the effectiveness of this Judgment. In case of failure of payment within the period specified in this Judgment, the failing party shall double pay the interest for the delayed period in accordance with Article 229 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People??s Republic of China.



In event of dissatisfaction with this Judgment, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Nanjing Channel Engineering Bureau, may within 15 days, while the defendants, Hiro and Yuma, may, within 30 days upon the service of this Judgment, submit a Statement of Appeal to this Court with copies according to the numbers of the relevant parties to the case, appealing to the Higher People??s Court of Guangdong Province.



			

Presiding Judge	Zhan Simin

Judge	Xiong Shaohui

Judge	Zhang Kexiong





(Official Chop of Guanghzou Maritime Court Affixed)

11 June 2009



Certified to be true to the original



										Assistant Judge	Gu Enzhen

												 Clerk	Liang Xiaolei









The translation is provided by Wang Jing & CO.