i-law

Maritime Law and Practice in China

Page 121

CHAPTER 11

Collision of ships

Collision of ships

 11.1 Collision of ships in the CMC 1992 means an accident arising from the touching of ships at sea or in other navigable waters adjacent thereto.1 The main provisions regarding collision of ships in the CMC 1992 are for the legal liability of the parties to be blamed. The regime of the legal liability is the same to that of Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels, 1910 (the “Collisions Convention 1910”) to which China has acceded.2 Besides the CMC 1992, the Tort Liability Law 2009 also applies to disputes over the collision of ships.3 The judicial interpretation on the collision of ships is Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Vessel Collisions 2008 (the “Provisions on Vessel Collisions 2008”).4 With regard to tort disputes arising out of contact between ships that are not caused by a collision of ships, the liabilities for compensation of the contacted vessels are determined in accordance with the General Principles of Civil Law 1986, as amended in 2009.5 11.2 For preventing collisions at sea, China has acceded to the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (the “COLREGs 1972”).6 In judicial practice, administrative regulations on navigation in local waters may apply in addition to the COLREGs 1972 for the assessment of liabilities of collided ships.7 Meanwhile, the Regulations for Preventing Collisions on Inland Waters 1991,8 as amended in 2003, apply to the collisions in Chinese inland waters and provide rules for the distribution of liability. However, it does not affect the application of the other relevant provisions in CMC 1992 for the liability of collisions in the inland waters.9 China also has the Maritime

Page 122

Traffic Safety Law 1983, which includes relevant issues in respect of collisions of ships, such as navigation, berthing and operations, safety protection, investigation and handling of traffic accidents and legal liability. However, it is understood as an administrative law for the safe management of ships by governments. Therefore, both the CMC 1992 and the COLREGs 1972 apply to disputes over the collision of ships in judicial practice.10

Ships in collision

11.3 “Ships” in the collision of ships in the CMC 1992 include those non-military or public service ships or craft that collide with the ships generally defined in the CMC 1992.11 The ship as a general concept in the CMC 1992 means sea-going ships and other mobile units, but does not include ships or craft to be used for military or public service purposes, nor small ships of less than 20 tons gross tonnage, including ship’s apparel.12 However, the provisions regarding the collision of ships in the CMC 1992 do not apply to disputes over collision between military vessels or official vessels in commercial activities and others ships for the collision of ships in the CMC 1992.13 Furthermore, the collision of ships in the CMC 1992 does not include collision between the inland water ships.14 11.4 The COLREGs 1972 applies to all vessels on the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.15 The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.16 The Collisions Convention 1910 applies to the compensation for damages caused to vessels, or to any things or persons on board thereof due to a collision that occurs between sea-going vessels or between sea-going vessels and vessels of inland navigation in whatever waters the collision takes place.17 11.5 Where a ship has caused damage to another ship and persons, goods or other property on board that ship, either by the execution or non-execution of a manoeuvre or by the non-observance of navigation regulations, even if no collision has actually occurred,18 the provisions regarding collision of ships in the CMC 1992 shall apply.19

Liabilities in collision

General principles

11.6 The three general rules of legal liability are established by the Collisions Convention 1910. First, if a collision occurs that is accidental or of an uncertain cause, the damages

Page 123

are borne by the party that suffers them.20 Second, if a collision occurs that is the fault of a party, the party at fault is liable for the damages that were caused.21 Last, if a collision occurs that is the fault of more than one party, the parties at fault are liable in proportion to the faults respectively committed (if it is not possible to determine the proportional fault, the liability is apportioned equally between the parties at fault).22 The general rules of legal liability in the Collisions Convention 1910 apply where the collision is caused by the fault of a pilot, even when the pilot is carried by compulsion of law.23 11.7 The general rules in the Collisions Convention 1910 are the same to those in the CMC 1992. First of all, neither of the parties shall be liable to the other if the collision is caused by force majeure or other causes not attributable to the fault of either party or if the cause thereof is left in doubt.24 Second, if the collision is caused by the fault of one of the ships, the one in fault shall be liable therefor.25 Last, if the colliding ships are all in fault, each ship shall be liable in proportion to the extent of its fault; if the respective faults are equal in proportion or it is impossible to determine the extent of the proportion of the respective faults, the liability of the colliding ships shall be apportioned equally.26 11.8 Force majeure in the Contract Law 1999 means objective situations that cannot be foreseen, avoided or overcome.27 In judicial practice, Chinese courts apply the same concept of force majeure in disputes over collision of ships although there may be tortious liability and not contractual liability in such disputes. In Shanghai Dongfang Dredging Engineering Co Ltd v Hudong Shipbuilding Co Ltd,28 the defendant’s ship suffered a force 10 gale, which broke the cables for anchoring the ship; it collided with another ship when it crossed the Huangpu River in a short period of time. It was found that the meteorological department did not forecast the disastrous weather in this case. Because the claimant failed to prove that the defendant had not made great efforts in good faith to avoid overcoming this disaster, the defendant was not liable for the collision due to the disastrous weather as a force majeure.

Proportion of liability

11.9 Where the colliding ships are all at fault for the collision at sea or in other navigable waters, the liability and the proportion thereof shall be analysed in the context of the COLREGs 1972. In principle, more fault mean more liability. If the ships in the collision have the same or are at similar fault, the liability of their shipowners shall be divided equally in proportion. Otherwise, the shipowner who is at more fault bears more liability. In Maoming Maonan Xinghua Petroleum & Chemical Co Ltd v Fujian Shishi Xinda Shipping Co Ltd and Others,29 both of the ships in the collision failed to maintain a proper look-out by sight,

Page 124

failed to proceed at a safe speed, and failed to properly use the radar equipment and thus violated rules 5, 6 and rule 7 (b) of the COLREGs 1972. Apart from the same violations, one of the ships also failed to take avoiding action consisting of an alteration of course towards a vessel abeam or abaft the beam in ample time and thus violated rule 19 (d) (ii) of the COLREGs 1972. Because one of the ships had violated the COLREGs 1972 more, that ship was held to bear 60 per cent of the liability for the collision. 11.10 Where the violations of the COLREGs 1972 by the parties in the ships collision are similar, Chinese courts may take into account the primary cause of the collision for determining the proportion of liability. Whether an action is a primary cause of the ships’ collision is subject to the discretion of judges based on the facts of the accident. In Beihai Honghai Shipping Co Ltd v Orient Overseas Container Line (U.K.) Ltd and Others,30 the stand-on ship OOCL Europe collided with the give-way ship Xinghai 668 and both ships violated rules 5, 6, 7 (a) and 8 of the COLREGs 1972. It was found that Xinghai 668 in the crossing situation did not take early and substantial action to keep well clear until the last two minutes before the accident, which violated rule 16 of the COLREGs 1972, but OOCL Europe altered course to port for Xinghai 668 on her own port side even when it was found that Xinghai 668 altered course to starboard so as to involve risk of collision that violated rule 17 (c) of the COLREGs 1972. The court of first instance concluded that the wrong action of OOCL Europe was the primary cause of the ships’ collision and thus should bear 60 per cent of the liability for the collision.31 11.11 However, the SPC disagreed with this conclusion in the retrial of this case. It pointed out that the wrong action of Xinghai 668 was the primary cause of collision although the wrong actions of OOCL Europe were also an important factor. Therefore, the SPC held that Xinghai 668 should bear 60 per cent of the liability for the collision. The SPC seems to have indicated that the collision may not have happened if the Xinghai 668 took early and substantial action to keep well clear in the crossing situation even if OOCL Europe ultimately took the wrong action to alter course to port. If this approach is correct, it may then be necessary to examine whether OOCL Europe had a last clear chance to avoid the collision if it had taken the right action.32 If OOCL Europe had a last clear chance to avoid the collision when it found that Xinghai 668 altered course to starboard, Xinghai 668 should not bear any liability, or at least not more liability than that of OOCL Europe. If there was no last clear chance, the equal proportion of liability may be appropriate because it is hard to conclude which action contributed to the collision more. 11.12 In reality, ships may not follow the COLREGs 1972 but take actions by mutual agreement. In this circumstance, Chinese courts still apply the COLREGs 1972 for determining the proportion of liability. In Jiangsu Weilun Shipping Co Ltd v Miranda Rose Co Ltd,33 before both ships Miranda Rose and Weilun 06 reached consensus, they should “intersect at red lights”34 when crossing each other. However, Miranda Rose first proposed

Page 125

an “intersection at green lights” and Weilun 06 agreed to the proposal although this proposal violated the give-way obligation under the COLREGs 1972. Under this special circumstance, there was no “give-way vessel” or “keep-way vessel” under the COLREGs 1972. Nevertheless, after reaching consensus on intersection in green lights, both parties believed that the other party would give way to it and they failed to conduct an effective observation on the situation of the waters and fully estimate the current occasion and risks of collision. They also did not take action until immediate danger was formed, and finally failed to avoid the collision. Although there was a mutual agreement between the ships, the Shanghai Maritime Court determined the liabilities for the ships collision according to the COLREGs 1972 without consideration of the mutual agreement that violated the COLREGs 1972. Because of the identical wrong courses of action, it was held that the two ships should bear liability in equal proportion.

Causation in tort

11.13 For tortious liability in collision cases, the general principles of tort law apply. Causation is a condition of tortious liability in the judicial practice of ship collision cases even though Chinese statute law does not expressly require this condition. In Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG and Rickmers-Linie GmbH & Cie KG v CS Marine Co Ltd,35 one of the issues in the dispute over the ships’ collision was the causation between the collision and the explosion of one of the colliding ships, Rickmers Genoa. Because of the collision, a flood of water poured into the No. 1 cargo hold of Rickmers Genoa. The cargo of magnesium desulfurisation agent within containers reacted with the water and hydrogen was released, which caused the explosion. In the chain of causation, the Shanghai Maritime Court pointed out that the collision was the origin of the explosion, the reaction between the water and the cargo was the condition of the explosion, and both the collision and the reaction caused the explosion. Without the collision, the reaction as the condition of the explosion would not have happened and the explosion would not have thus occurred. Therefore, it was held that there was causation in law between the ships’ collision and the explosion on Rickmers Genoa. For liability in tort, it is necessary to examine both the causation in fact and the causation in law. In this case, there was only causation in fact. In other words, the damage due to the explosion was too remote. 11.14 The test of remoteness is foreseeability.36 If the damage is not foreseeable, it is too remote. In Xing Yulin v Qinzhou Port Yunshunda Shipping Co Ltd,37 the ship Tailianda collided with a first ship and kept reversing until a second collision with a second ship. The Shanghai Maritime Court pointed out that the first collision was an obvious cause of the second collision. However, it was just causation in fact, but not causation in law. In

Page 126

fact, Tailianda did not lose its power after collision but was still under control. In the view of the Shanghai Maritime Court, Tailianda should not have kept reversing, leading to the second collision, but instead should have stopped and anchored in a safe water. Therefore, it was not the first collision but the continuous reverse of Tailianda that caused the second collision. So the liabilities in the two collisions should be separate and the first colliding ship was not liable for any damage to the second colliding ship in the second collision. If both the causation in fact and the causation in law are satisfied, the liable person is liable for the damage caused to others in tort. In Qinhuangdao Jinrun Shipping Co Ltd v Fujian Guanhai Shipping Co Ltd,38 the ship Guanhai 308 collided with a first ship in a crossing situation causing its bow to alter course to starboard and collided again with a second ship in the overtaking situation two minutes later. It was held that, from the perspective of causation, the first collision was the direct and primary cause of the second collision.39 Since the causation was satisfied, the first colliding ship should be liable for the compensation from Guanhai 308 to the second colliding ship according to its proportion of liability in the first collision.40

Compensation for damages

Compensation in general

11.15 There is no compensation if neither of the parties is liable to the other.41 If the collision is caused by the fault of one of the ships, the one at fault shall be liable for compensation of the loss of the other one.42 If each ship is liable in proportion to the extent of its fault, the ships in fault are liable for the damage to the ship, the goods and other property on board pursuant to the proportions. Where the cargos on board are damaged when both the colliding ships are at fault, the cargo interests may claim against the carrying vessel for breach of contract, or claim against one or both of the colliding vessels for compensation in tort.43 Where damage is caused to the property of a third party, the liability for compensation of any of the colliding ships does not exceed the proportion it shall bear. If the ships in fault have caused loss of life or personal injury to a third party, they shall be jointly and severally liable. If a ship has paid an amount of compensation in excess of its proportion, it has the right of recourse against the other ship at fault.44 11.16 The property loss or losses of a third party means the loss or losses directly caused by the vessel collision to the properties other than goods on the vessels or properties carried by crew, passengers, or other personnel on the ships that are all in fault.45 The

Page 127

loss of life or personal injury to a third party includes the personal casualties of crew, passengers, and other personnel on the collided ships.46 In judicial practice, where parties to disputes over ship collision have lodged lawsuits for disputes over the collision of ships, a maritime court will suspend the trial of disputes over losses caused by the collision to the properties of a third party and resume the trial after the conclusion of the dispute over the collision.47

Compensation for damage to property

11.17 The compensation for damage to property caused by the ships’ collision is subject to the Provisions on Compensation for Vessel Collisions 1995. Damage to property includes the physical damage to property, consequential expenses and loss, the reasonable expenses and loss for avoiding or minimising the damage and the loss of expected prospective interest.48 In Chinese judicial practice, the prospective interest is the reasonable loss that could be reasonably anticipated by the liable person.49 The loss of penalty paid to a third party is not a reasonable prospective interest because it cannot be anticipated by the liable person in a collision.50 11.18 The compensation for damage to the ship includes the compensation for the whole damage and for partial damage. Whole damage to a ship includes the loss of value of the ship including bunkers on board, ship’s apparel and other properties on board, seamen’s wages, repatriation fees and other reasonable expenses. Partial damage to a ship includes the temporary and permanent repair cost, auxiliary expenses and maintenance cost. The damage to a ship also includes reasonable salvage remuneration, expenses for investigation, rescue and removal of shipwreck, the costs for setting the wreck mark, salvage reward, loss of hire or freight for the current voyage, contribution to general average, loss due to detention of ship and other reasonable costs and expenses.51 11.19 The compensation for damage to the property on board includes the loss or devaluation caused by the loss of or damage to the property, reasonable cost for repair or treatment, reasonable cost for salvage, rescue and removal of the property, contribution to general average and other reasonable costs and expenses.52 The compensation for damage to the onshore installations caused by the collision with ships includes the whole loss of installations or the repair cost for the partial damage and reasonably expected prospective interest before installations can be used as usual after repair.53 If the owner of the damaged installations violates the principle of good faith and deliberately delays the repair, the owner shall be liable for the loss of prospective interest so caused.54

Page 128

Compensation for personal injury

11.20 According to the Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Damage 2003,55 compensation for personal injury includes:56
  • (a) in the event of injury: expenses paid for medical treatment and loss of income due to absence from work, including medical expenses, nursing expenses, travelling expenses, accommodation expenses, board expenses in hospital, and necessary expenses for food;
  • (b) in the event of disability due to injury: necessary expenses, cost for additional needs in living and loss of income due to inability to work, including disability compensation, expenses of disability aids, living expenses of dependants, as well as necessary expenses of recovery, nursing, and continuing treatment actually occurred in follow-up treatment;
  • (c) in the event of death: the compensation for injury before death, funeral expenses, living expenses of any dependants, death compensation expenses, travelling expenses and accommodation expenses paid and the loss of income due to absence from work incurred by the relatives of the victim in collision for funeral arrangements as well as other reasonable expenses.
11.21 Where a victim or a close relative of the deceased suffers mental distress, and the compensation claimant files an action with a people’s court claiming compensation for mental distress, such compensation shall be determined according to the Interpretation on Compensation for Mental Distress 2001.57 The right to claim compensation for mental distress shall not be transferred or succeeded, unless the person obligated to compensate has promised in writing to make financial compensation or the compensation claimant has filed an action with a Chinese court.58 The compensation for mental distress includes the compensation for disability, death and other forms of damage.59 For the purpose of compensation, the claimant must prove that the mental distress is serious.60 If the claimant fails to prove the seriousness of mental distress, the claim for mental distress compensation may not be considered when the personal injury has been compensated.61 11.22 The amount of compensation for mental distress shall be determined based on the following factors:62
  • (1) degree of the infringer’s fault, unless the law provides otherwise;
  • (2) the means and place of the harm and the manner of the act of harm;
  • (3) consequences of the act of tort;
  • (4) the benefits obtained by the liable person;
  • (5)

    Page 129

    the liable person’s financial ability to bear the liability; and
  • (6) average living standard in the area where the court accepting the case is located.

Liable persons

11.23 The liabilities for compensation arising out of a ship collision shall be borne by the owner of the ship or by the bareboat charterer if the collision occurs during the period of bareboat charter and the bareboat charter is registered.63 In principle, a shipowner shall mean the person who has been legally registered as the shipowner. Where a ship is not legally registered, the shipowner shall mean the person actually in possession of such ship.64 However, in some special circumstances, the legally registered shipowner may not be the liable person in the collision of ships. In Chinese practice, a ship owned by the beneficial owner may be registered by another person with the person’s name. The reason for this special practice is the registration requirement in law. The real owner may not be qualified to register his ship as the shipowner, and thus the ship is registered by others to satisfy the requirement of ship registration. Therefore, this special practice is not based on an agency agreement or management agreement between the real beneficial owner and the registered owner, but on a special agreement that is for registration purpose only. So the registered owner is not an agent or the manager of the ship. Except the registration, the real beneficial owner controls and is responsible for everything of the ship. In this circumstance, only the real beneficial owner is recognised as the liable person for collision of ships and the registered owner does not bear joint and several liability.65 11.24 In international shipping practice, the ship’s Nationality Certificate is the most important piece of evidence for identifying the shipowner. In Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co Ltd v PT Djakarta Lloyd (PERSERO),66 the defendant was identified as the shipowner through the ship’s registration information from the website of Lloyd’s Register in the court of first instance.67 The defendant argued that it was just the ship’s technical manager, and, although the defendant’s name was on the ship’s seal, it was just for technical management of the ship. The ship’s Safety Certificate and Compliance Certificate showed that the defendant was the ship’s technical manager. The court of appeal pointed out that, as international shipping practice, the ship’s Nationality Certificate was valid evidence of ownership of the ship. According to the ship’s Nationality Certificate, the defendant was not the shipowner or responsible manager. 11.25 In China, the bareboat chartering shall be registered at the ship registration authority. No ship bareboat chartering shall have legal effect against a third party unless registered.68 So, if a bareboat charter is not legally registered,69 the owner of the bareboat chartered ship

Page 130

cannot argue that the bareboat charterer is liable for compensation in the ship collision. In other words, the charterer of the unregistered bareboat charter is not a liable person for ship collision unless he agrees to bear the liability. However, the unregistered charterer will be held jointly and severally liable with the shipowner in the ship collision action against both of them.70 Furthermore, where the colliding ships are all at fault, if the owner of one ship chooses to claim against an unregistered bareboat charterer of the other ship for the compensation of his loss without requiring to add the owner of the chartered ship for the claim, the claimant shall not deny the bareboat charterer’s capacity as a subject in the counterclaim against him.71 11.26 Where the ship operator or manager is at fault in the ship collision, the operator or manager shall be held jointly and severally liable with the shipowner or the bareboat charterer,72 without prejudice to the circumstance where subjects bearing liability may seek reimbursement among themselves.73 Of course, the ship manager who is held liable shall have the authority from the shipowner for the management of the ship and for dealing with the matters of ship collision.74

Burden of proof and evidence

11.27 Under the Collisions Convention 1910, it is mandated that all legal presumptions of fault in regard to liability for collision are abolished.75 The SPC has abolished the legal presumptions of fault. The liabilities due to the fault in the ships collision are identified on the basis of evidence. In Panama Trade Expansion Shipping Company and Hong Kong Weilin Sailing Co Ltd v Zhong Xiaoyuan and Zhuhai Anti-Smuggling Office (The Trade Expansion),76 a fishing boat was hit and sank and 21 people fell overboard. The ship causing the accident did not rescue any person overboard but left the accident waters. The owners of the fishing boat and Zhuhai Anti-Smuggling Office that requisitioned the fishing boat claimed against the “liable” shipowner of the “liable” ship Trade Expansion causing the accident.77 Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal held that the “liable” shipowner was liable for the loss of the fishing boat and the death of the people due to the collision.78 11.28 In the retrial of The Trade Expansion, the SPC pointed out that the claimants should bear the burden of proof. In fact, all evidence that allegedly proved that Trade Expansion was the liable ship causing the accident was indirect evidence. It was found that there was no collision trace and damage at the bow of Trade Expansion, the adherent paint

Page 131

drawn from the left stroke-side of Trade Expansion was totally different from the paint on the fishing boat and Trade Expansion did not make a sharp left turn or slow down when it passed the incident waters. It was also found that the relative situations of the position of collision as claimed by the claimants, the sinking position of the fishing boat, and the position where the persons were rescued did not conform to local tides at that time. More importantly, it was found that there was another container ship coming from Hong Kong passing the incident waters when the collision occurred. Basically, there was a lack of evidence to determine that Trade Expansion was the liable ship causing the accident. Therefore, the SPC revoked the judgments of the first instance and the second instance of this case and dismissed the claim from the claimants. 11.29 The Trade Expansion was the first case about the dispute over ships’ collision that was tried by the SPC. It was of guiding significance in the judicial practice of how to apply indirect evidence to determine collision occurrence. When direct evidence is insufficient, the collision can be determined only when such indirect evidence is interactive and constitutes a complete chain of evidence. Where the cargo interests of the cargoes on the colliding vessels or a third party claim for compensation for any loss to the cargoes or other property against either or both of the colliding vessels, the burden of proof of the proportion of the degree of fault shall lie with the colliding vessels. If no evidence is furnished without justifiable reasons, either of the colliding vessels shall bear all liabilities for compensation or both vessels shall bear joint and several liabilities.79 The evidence includes, but is not limited to, legally binding judgments, rulings, mediation decisions and arbitration awards including the judgments, rulings, mediation decisions and arbitration awards made by foreign authorities as submitted by the colliding vessels.80 A judgment from the court of first instance may not be a legally binding judgment if any party in the dispute appeals. However, such a judgment could still be considered as evidence of the proportion of the degree of fault if the decision of the court of appeal or the settlement of the parties does not change the proportion of the degree of fault in the judgment of the court of first instance.81 11.30 Where the parties to the dispute over a ship’s collision have reached an agreement on the proportion of the degree of fault, they are liable for the loss of the third party according to the agreed proportion, without prejudice to the lawful interests of the third party. Where the parties have only reached an agreement on the mutual compensation amount without specifying the proportion of the degree of fault, they are liable for the loss of the third party according to the proportion on the basis of the compensation amount, without prejudice to the lawful interests of the third party.82 11.31 During the trial of cases involving disputes over a collision, Chinese courts shall not produce the evidence obtained through evidence preservation upon application by the parties concerned or collected from relevant authorities through investigation until the parties concerned have completed producing all evidence and issued the statement on the

Page 132

completion thereof.83 After a collision, relevant authorities may find the facts of the collision through investigation. Such finding of facts confirmed by the parties and relevant personnel to the accidents may be adopted as evidence by Chinese authorities to ascertain the facts of the accident unless the finding of facts can be overturned by sufficient evidence to the contrary.84 The party who disagrees with the finding of facts from the relevant authorities bears the burden of proof to provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.85 11.32 If more than one piece of evidence is available for the same ships’ collision, Chinese courts may confirm the probative force of several pieces of evidence for the same fact according to the following general principles:86
  • (1) that the probative force of public documentary evidence produced by authorities or social organisations according to its function and power is greater than that of other documentary evidence;
  • (2) that the probative force of material evidence, archives, expert conclusions, records of inspection or notarised or registered documentary evidence is greater than that of other documentary evidence, audio-visual materials and testimony of a witness;
  • (3) that the probative force of primary evidence is greater than that of the hearsay evidence;
  • (4) that the probative force of direct evidence is greater than that of the secondary evidence; and
  • (5) that the probative force of testimony offered by a witness in favour of the party having a family relationship or other close relationship therewith is greater than that of other witness testimony.
11.33 In China, relevant authorities are authorised and also obliged to investigate accidents for administrative purpose. In China Insurance Co Ltd Jiangsu Branch v Qinzhou Port Weilong Shipping Co Ltd,87 the local Maritime Safety Administration was authorised to investigate the cause of the accident of ships’ collision and ascertain the liabilities of the parties in the accident.88 The proportion of liabilities in the accident concluded by the local Maritime Safety Administration is the most persuasive evidence for finding the facts of the ships’ collision although any evidence to the contrary is still admissible. 11.34 In Chinese judicial practice, when the evidence produced by the relevant authorities and the evidence produced by professional organisations is inconsistent, Chinese courts determine the probative force of that evidence on the bases of their analysis of it. In Wang Yishun and Hangzhou Jingwei Shipping Co Ltd,89 the report from the local Maritime Safety Administration and the report from a professional company concluded a different proportion of the degree of fault of the parties in the ships’ collision. It was found that the report from the local authority was concluded on the basis of the evidence obtained through the

Page 133

investigation, such as electronic chart, logbook, telegraph record, etc of one of the ships in collision and the interview of some crewmen on board the ship. In comparison, the conclusion of the report from the professional company was based only on the analysis of the accident. The SPC pointed out that the report from the local authority was more persuasive and the report from the professional company could not overturn the conclusion of the report from the local authority. Therefore, the report from the local authority was accepted as the evidence of the facts of the collision.