The original proceedings arose out of an accident which took place at sea on 15 November 2011. The plaintiff, Mr Robert Kieran, was a pilot in the port of Dublin, and claimed that, as he was disembarking a pilot boat belonging to the first defendant and embarking on the second defendant’s vessel, the Johanna Desiree, the vessels were navigated in a negligent manner, and as a result, the pilot ladder became fouled causing him to lose his grip. The pilot boat did not collide with the Johanna Desiree.

It was ordered that the question of whether the plaintiff’s claim was a maritime claim within the meaning of s 46(2) of the Irish Civil Liability Act would be tried as a preliminary issue.

The first defendant submitted that s 46(2) required 2 conditions: (1) the damage or injury must relate to a collision between 2 or more vessels and (2) any injury, if suffered, is by a person on board either vessel.

The plaintiff submitted that it was not necessary for a collision to have taken place for s 46(2) to apply.

Previously, counsel for the plaintiff argued that both the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Collision between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910), art 14, and the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision (Collision (Civil Jurisdiction) Convention 1952), art 4, gave the definition of ‘collision’ an extended meaning.

The court held that art 14 did no more than offer the contracting states a limited period in which to extend the scope of the Collision Convention 1910. Nevertheless, for the reasons set out in Kieran v Dublin Port Company [2016] IEHC 603 (CMI66), the court held that there was no requirement for the purposes of the Irish legislation that an actual collision had to have taken place, and the plaintiff’s claim did fall within s 46(2) Irish Civil Liability Act.

Subsequent to this judgment being handed down, counsel returned to court to address the court with regard to an error which had been made in the submissions. Counsel for the plaintiff explained that he had intended to refer to art 13 instead of art 14 of the Collision Convention 1910.

Article 13 states: ‘This Convention extends to the making good of damages which a vessel has caused to another vessel, or to goods or persons on board either vessel, either by the execution or non-execution of a manoeuvre or by the non-observance of the Regulations, even if no collision had actually taken place' (emphasis added).

Held: In McGuinness v Marine Institute [2010] 2 IR 71, Dunne J traced the genesis of s 46 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 back to the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, which gave statutory effect to the Collision Convention 1910. That Convention included art 13. It follows that, insofar as s 46 gives statutory effect to the Collision Convention 1910, it must be deemed to include within its scope claims arising out of the interaction of two or more vessels causing personal injury to a person on board, even if no collision had actually taken place.

McGovern J was accordingly reinforced in his view that no collision is necessary to bring a claim within the scope of s 46 of the Civil Liability Act, and the court affirmed the order made previously.