This was a claim brought by Pachkun AV (the claimant), the owner of the Alexandra, against LLC Invest Marine (the first defendant), the owner of the berth where the ship was anchored. LLC Rem-Nova DV (the second defendant), and FSUE Natsrybresurs (the third defendant) joined the proceedings as co-defendants liable jointly and severally with the first defendant. The claim arose from damage to the Alexandra caused by a collision with the ship Plavkran-98, which was being towed by the Anatoliy Khersonskiy and the Peresvet, while the Alexandra was anchored.

The third defendant was under a contractual obligation to the claimant to manage the ship Alexandra and ensure its safe anchorage. The third defendant was also the manager of the berth where the Alexandra was anchored. The first defendant and the second defendant rendered towage services to the Plavkran-98, during which the Alexandra was damaged. The owner of the Plavkran-98 was LLC Kamchatmorproduct.

The Court of first instance found in favour of the claimant in part. It held that the claimant was liable for 50 per cent of the collision for failing to follow the instruction from third defendant to move the ship to another berth in light of the upcoming towage of the Plavkran-98. The remaining 50 per cent of the claim was apportioned between the defendants. The third defendant was liable for 25 per cent, the first defendant for 10 per cent, and the second defendant for 15 per cent.

The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The claimant then lodged a cassation appeal.

Held: The cassation appeal is dismissed.

Under art 310 of the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF), damage to a ship caused by a collision should be apportioned between the ships involved. Under art 315 of the MSC RF, a ship is considered to be not at fault for a collision unless the contrary is proved in the proceedings. Under art 311 of the MSC RF, if a collision occurs without fault on either party's part or due to force majeure, the damages are borne by the party that suffered them.

The Court found that the collision occurred due to insufficient space for the proper towage of the Plavkran-98 in the area of the berth. The lack of space, among other things, was caused by the claimant's failure to move its ship to another berth, despite having received an express instruction to do so, on which the defendants insisted. In light of this, the Court of Cassation agreed with the Courts of lower instances that the claimant was liable for 50 per cent.

The third defendant's liability was 25 per cent because, despite knowing of the lack of space near the berth, it still gave a green light to proceed with the towing. The third defendant did not preclude the towage, but should have done so. The remaining 25 per cent was apportioned between the first defendant and the second defendant, as they should have refused to carry out the towage operation, given that they lacked the space to do it properly.

Based on this, the Court agreed with the conclusion made by the Courts of lower instance, and dismissed the cassation appeal.