Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki

it was not manned with a competent crew, more specifically a competent Master; and

there was no proper system in place for passage planning and/or there was a failure to exercise due diligence in passage planning, in contravention of IMO Resolution A.893(21) (Guidelines for Voyage Planning).

The recap to the voyage charterparty provided for General Average to be adjusted and settled in London in accordance with the York/Antwerp Rules 1994. The cargo was shipped under a single "CONGENBILL 1994" bill of lading dated 13 March 2023, which incorporated the terms of the Charterparty and in any case provided for General Average to be adjusted and settled in London in accordance with the York/Antwerp Rules. The Average Guarantee was governed by English law and contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court in London.

The figure below (Figure 2 from the report of Captain Simpson) sets out the vessel’s Passage Plan course, which is the yellow line, between Way Points 51 and 55 and the approximate route actually taken, which is the red line.

The Master took over as OOW at 20.00. In the preceding 2 hours, the Passage Plan provided for the vessel’s position to be fixed (i.e. plotted and recorded in the Deck Log) at least every 10 minutes between Way Points 51 and 52 and at least every 30 minutes between Way Points 52 and 53. No such fixes are recorded. The only position that is recorded is the vessel’s position at the time that the watch was handed over. And this was marked only on the working chart. It was not entered in the Deck Log.