Following a collision and the consequent expenditure spent by the owners in saving the vessel and the cargo, the owners declared general average. The cargo insurers gave the general average guarantee to pay any due general average contribution payable by the cargo interests. Subsequently, the cargo insurers did not pay, and the owners sued the insurers. The insurers defended with an allegation that there was a breach by the owners of the obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure seaworthiness of the vessel at the commencement of the voyage. This was based on the insurer’s position that the Bessel had no adequate systems in place in relation to passage planning and/or bridge management, resulting in the collision and the following expenditure. Seemingly, if this was true it would be a breach of Hague-Visby Rules Art III(1) obligation, which breach will disentitle the owners to any general contribution under Rule D of the York Antwerp Rules. The insurers produced a report from the Chinese authorities saying there was negligence in look out, failure to proceed at a safe speed and negligence in taking precaution required in special circumstances. An expert, namely a captain, giving expert opinion for the insurers said that it was difficult to see how the collision would have happened in the systems were properly implemented and followed. However, the insurers were not able answer the owners’ question what systems ought to have been maintained. While seemingly the collision here did not happen shortly after the vessel left the port, Knowles J drew attention to the following passage from Scrutton:

The burden of proving unseaworthiness rests upon the party who asserts it and the party intending to rely upon unseaworthiness must plead it with sufficient particularity. But where a ship, shortly after leaving port and without any apparent reason sinks or leaks, the mere facts afford prima facie evidence of unseaworthiness, which must be rebutted.

Knowles J concluded that insurers failed to show some foundation for the allegations of unseaworthiness it made supported by a statement of truth. Hence, his lordship gave a summary judgment for the owners.