In December 2007, two big ships, Samco Europe and MSC Prestige, crashed into each other at sea. No one wanted a crash, but it happened, and both sides blamed the other. After some time, both ship owners started to talk about who was more at fault and how to share the blame.
In June 2009, the owners of MSC Prestige said, “Let’s split fault 60:40 in our favor.” In September 2009, the owners of Samco Europe replied, “No, 60:40 in our favor.” Those are the same numbers, but pointing the other way, and that tiny flip matters a lot. Lawyers then traded formal papers in late 2009, the court set directions in March 2010, and both sides swapped witness stories and used experts to study ship data from the voyage recorders in mid-2010. They even tried mediation on February 3–4, 2011, to settle without a full trial. It did not work. On February 4, 2011, Samco Europe’s side pulled back its 60:40 offer and tried a better deal for itself: two-thirds to one-third.
The trial happened in April 2011. The judge gave his decision on June 23, 2011. He said the fault should be shared 60:40 in favor of Samco Europe. That means Samco Europe was less at fault and MSC Prestige was more at fault. So Samco Europe “won” on liability, but only partly, because it still had some share of blame. After that, there was one more fight: who should pay the lawyers’ bills, and from which dates? Costs can be very large, and the rules for costs matter.
English Admiralty collision cases have a special rule. A party can make a written “percentage offer” (for example, 60:40) at least 21 days before trial. If the other side refuses and the judge later reaches the same or a better split for the offer-maker, then, unless it would be unfair, the offer-maker gets all of its costs after the 21st day, and the other side cannot recover its later costs. Here, Samco Europe made exactly that kind of offer on September 9, 2009: 60:40 in its favor. Later, they withdrew it in February 2011. MSC Prestige argued that once the offer was withdrawn, it should not count for costs. Samco Europe argued that the offer still “counted” because MSC Prestige should have accepted it back in 2009, and if they had, everyone would have saved a lot of money.
The judge looked at older cases and the rules. He explained that even if an offer is withdrawn later, the key question is simple: what caused the later costs? If the other side unreasonably refused a fair offer when it was open, then their refusal caused the later costs. That means they should pay. The judge also said each case depends on its own facts. If a withdrawn offer is replaced by the same terms from the other side, that could change the cost result from that new date. But in this case, MSC Prestige never offered or accepted 60:40 in favor of Samco Europe. That 60:40 deal sat on the table for more than 16 months and they still said no.
So what was the final order on costs? The judge drew a line at October 1, 2009, which was 21 days after Samco Europe’s 60:40 offer. For costs before October 1, 2009, each side pays by the same 60:40 split as the fault: MSC Prestige must pay 60% of Samco Europe’s early costs, and Samco Europe must pay 40% of MSC Prestige’s early costs. For all costs after October 1, 2009, MSC Prestige must pay Samco Europe’s costs, and MSC Prestige cannot recover its own later costs. This ending fits the rule’s goal: push parties to accept fair offers and avoid wasting money. It also fits the facts: the 60:40 offer matched the judge’s final fault split, and it should have been accepted when it was open. That is why the judge said Samco Europe gets all its post-offer costs, and why MSC Prestige has to cover them.
