Page 108 - Case Book 2017 - 2020 April 18

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS serious damage, and close its hearing against any other
There was a series of collisions between a group of six boat, as required by rule 63.5.
small keelboats running on the same tack to a leeward The protest committee in this case correctly addressed the
mark in strong wind and tide and a choppy sea. The
protest committee found that the protests arising, which question as to whether there was only one, or more than
one, incident, and decided, before any hearing had been
alleged serious damage, were invalid under the rules
applicable at the time (rule 61.1(a)(4) not then being opened, that there was no causal link between any
infringement by W and subsequent infringements. It
available), and decided to act under rule 60.3(a)(1). It
had learned from the invalid protests that there had been therefore felt itself precluded from protesting her,
whether under rule 60.3(a)(1) or rule 61.1(c). The RYA’s
contact between the most windward of the group (W)
and the boat to leeward of her (L), not resulting in decision is that, given several boats in close proximity, L
changing course as a result of contact with W, and then a
damage. L had then borne away and there followed a
chain of collisions between windward and leeward series of contacts all within a ten-second period, there
was a causal link and therefore only one incident.
boats, resulting in serious damage to two of them.
Once it is established that there was an incident
It concluded that the collision between W and L was an resulting in injury or serious damage, and involving the
incident separate from the subsequent collisions, and
decided that it was not able to protest W under rule protestee, a protest under rule 60.3(a)(1) is no different
from any other protest. The protest committee must
60.3(a)(1), as she was not involved in an incident that
may have resulted in serious damage. It protested the decide the facts and apply the rules to the incident. Any
boat involved in the incident and protested may be
other boats.
penalized under the appropriate rule, regardless of
L and the boat to leeward of her (X) were both whether it was she that caused the injury or serious
disqualified under rule 11. The protest committee, with damage, and the fact that she did not cause serious
clear evidence of contact between W and L, had found damage or serious injury is not of itself a reason for
as a fact that W (not represented at the hearing) had exonerating her.
broken rule 11, but she was not penalized as she was not During the hearing of a protest brought under rule
a party to the protest. L and X appealed.
60.3(a)(1), a protest committee might also realise that it
Both appeals were upheld, the RYA deciding (based on had not initially cast its net widely enough, and that a
the facts found by the protest committee, but contrary to further boat was involved that might have broken a rule.
the conclusions of the protest committee) that all the It is then entitled under rule 60.3(a)(2) to protest that
subsequent collisions had resulted from the original boat. As that requires a fresh hearing (see rule 61.1(c)),
collision between W and L, entitling L and X to it is obviously preferable if such a boat can be identified
exoneration. earlier and included within the protest under rule
60.3(a)(1) from the outset, if only later to eliminate her.
In its decision, the RYA gave the following guidance on
rule 60.3(a)(1). In this case, W cannot be penalized by the RYA under
rule 71.3 as she was not a party to the protest. The protest
SCOPE OF RULE 60.3(a)(1) AND RELATED committee may not now protest her, as any possible time
PROCESS limit for a protest has long since expired. There is no rule
When there was an incident that may have resulted in giving the RYA power to return the case to the protest
injury or serious damage, rule 60.3(a)(1) states that a committee and require it to protest W.
protest committee may protest any boat involved. At the
time when it is deciding what action to take, it will not Protest Committee v Ariel and others, Royal Lymington YC
have firm facts as to the details of the incident or the
precise involvement of each boat. The protest RYA 2003/5
committee is allowed to protest any boat that may have Rule 14(a), Avoiding Contact
been involved and, when it decides to protest, the RYA Rule 16.1, Changing Course
recommends it should protest all boats that may have Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
been involved. Stating a belief that rule 14 has been Rule 18.2(c), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
broken would be appropriate for this purpose. Rule 21, Exoneration
Once the hearing begins, the protest committee must Rule 21 offers no exoneration for breaking rule 14. In
then identify the incident more precisely, and establish order to avoid penalization when damage results from a
that injury or serious damage resulted from it. collision, a right-of-way boat rounding a mark may
need to delay her normal change of course, or indeed
When only two boats are involved, it is not difficult to change course in the other direction in order to comply
identify an incident. When more than two boats are with the requirement to avoid contact if reasonably
involved and there are sequential failures to comply possible.
with the rules, the protest committee has to decide
whether there is only one, or more than one, incident.
The test is that there must be some causal link between
the events. If it decides that there was more than one
incident, it should proceed only with the protest against
boats involved in the incident that resulted in injury or

108