Hearing Decision

Procedural matters: 

1. Hearings Nos. 8, 9 and 12 were heard together with hearing No. 7 in accordance with RRS 63.2(b) since all hearings arose from the same incident.


2. 1011 was represented by Michael O’Brien


3. 865 was represented by Philippe Charret


4. 1392 was represented by Steve Billingham


5. 1082 was represented by Peter McNeill


6. 1119 was represented by Geoff Masters

Facts found: 

1. Approaching the windward mark in 15 knots of breeze and 1m seas, 1082 and 1392 were on port tack on a course to meet the starboard tack layline outside the zone, and multiple boats including 1011, 1119 and 865 on starboard tack on or above the starboard tack layline.


2. 1082 and 1119 were on converging courses, and 1082 bore away.


3. There was contact between the bow of 1082 and the port bow of 1119, causing hull damage to 1082 and 1119.


4. The contact between 1119 and 1082, caused 1119 to pass through head to wind onto port tack half a boat length directly in front of 865.


5. There was contact between the bow of 865 and the starboard side of 1119 just behind the shrouds, causing the helm of 865 to fall overboard with injury, mast damage to 1119 and hull damage to 865.


6. After the contact between 1082 and 1119, 1082 bore away on port tack on a collision course with 1011.


7. Contact occurred between the bow of 1082 and the port bow of 1011 causing a hole in the hull close to the port rail of 1011.


8. 1392 on port tack was on a course to pass astern of 1011.


9. An unidentified boat was on port tack sailing downwind, on a course parallel to the starboard layline, overlapped to windward of 1392 on a collision course with 1392.


10. There was contact between the bow of the unidentified boat and the port stern quarter of 1392, causing 1392  to change course to windward.


11. There was contact between the bow of 1392 and the port stern quarter of 1011, after which the bow of 1392 rode over the aft deck of 1011 and contacted the backstay, causing mast damage and hole in the port stern quarter of 1011.


12. 865, 1082, 1011, 1119 and 1392 retired from the race.


13. 865, 1011 and 1119 requested redress.

1. 1082 on port tack failed to keep clear of 1119 on starboard tack, and broke RRS 10.


2. 1082 did not avoid contact with 1119 when it was reasonably possible, and broke RRS 14(a).


3. It was reasonably possible for 1082 not to cause  contact between 1119 and 865. 1082 broke RRS 14(b).


4. 1119 on port tack failed to keep clear of 865 on starboard tack, and broke RRS 10.


5. Since 1119 was compelled to break RRS 10 as a consequence of 1082 breaking RRS 10, she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a) for this breach.


6. It was not reasonably possible for 1119 to avoid contact with 865. 1119 did not break RRS 14(a).


7. It was not reasonably possible for 865 to avoid contact with 1119. 865 did not break RRS 14(a).


8. 1082 on port tack failed to keep clear of 1011 on starboard tack, and broke RRS 10.


9.  It was not reasonably possible for 1082 to avoid contact with 1011. 1082 did not break RRS 14(a).


10. It was not reasonably possible for 1011 the right-of-way boat to avoid contact with 1082 when it was clear that 1082 was not keeping clear. 1011 did not break RRS 14(a).


11. An unidentified boat to windward failed to keep clear of 1392 to leeward, and broke RRS 11.


12. It was reasonably possible for the unidentified boat to avoid contact with 1011 and not to cause  contact between 1392 and 1011. The unidentified boat broke RRS 14(a) and 14(b).


13. 1392 on port tack failed to keep clear of 1011 on starboard tack, and broke RRS 10.


14. Since 1392 was compelled to break RRS 10 as a consequence of an unidentified boat breaking RRS 11, 14(a), 14(b) she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a) for this breach.


15. It was not reasonably possible for 1392 the right-of-way boat to avoid contact with the unidentified boat when it was clear that the unidentified boat was not keeping clear. 1392 did not break RRS 14(a).


16. It was not reasonably possible for 1392 to avoid contact with 1011.1392 did not break RRS 14(a).


17. 865’s score in race 9 was made significantly worse through no fault of her own by injury and physical damage because of the action of 1082 that was breaking RRS 10, 14(a), 14(b)  and took an appropriate penalty. Therefore, the requirements for redress in RRS 61.4(b)(2) are met.


18. 1119’s score in race 9 was made significantly worse through no fault of her own by physical damage because of the action of 1082 that was breaking RRS 10 , 14(a) , 14(b)   and took an appropriate penalty. Therefore, the requirements for redress in RRS 61.4(b)(2) are met.


19. 1011’s score in race 9 was made significantly worse through no fault of her own by physical damage because of the action of 1082 that was breaking RRS 10, 14(a) and took an appropriate penalty.Therefore, the requirements for redress in RRS 61.4(b)(2) are met.


20. 1082 caused injury to 865, and serious damage to 1011 and 1119. By retiring, 1082 took the appropriate penalty as required by RRS 44.1(b).

1. As 1082 retired from race 9, she took an applicable penalty and is not further penalized under RRS 60.5(c)(2).


2. Redress is given to 865, 1011 and 1119. 


3. 865, 1011 and 1119 are to be scored in race 9 points equal to the average, rounded to the nearest tenth of a point (0.05 rounded upwards) of their points scored in all races in the series except race 9. No other boat’s score shall change.