We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Saturday, 12 April 14
HOW DO YOU CALCULATE LOSS OF EARNINGS FOLLOWING A COLLISION? - INCE & CO
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The recent case of Astipalaia vs Hanjin Shenzhen [2014] EWHC 120 (Admlty) has revisited the existing case law on assessment of damages following a collision and provided further clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied. On 26 March 2008 there was a collision between the fully laden VLCC tanker Astipalaia and the container ship Hanjin Shenzhen in the approaches to Singapore where Astipalaia was due to discharge. As a result of the collision, Astipalaia suffered damage to her hull, guard rails and mooring chock. Astipalaia was able to proceed into Singapore to discharge her cargo.
The background facts
At the time of the collision, Astipalaia was trading in the VLCC spot market which in early-mid 2008 was particularly buoyant and the vessel was acceptable throughout the industry to oil majors and other first class charterers. However, Astipalaia was unfixed for her next employment at the time of the collision.
As a result of the incident, the vessel’s oil major approvals were temporarily placed on “technical hold” by the majors pending the usual investigation into the collision. Astipalaia was also required by class to undertake permanent repairs before any further employment.
Astipalaia sailed from Singapore to Dubai in ballast and entered dry dock for permanent repairs which lasted around 10 days. On exiting dry dock, Astipalaia was still unable to resume trading on the VLCC spot market as the “technical hold” had not then been lifted. In the absence of oil major approvals, Astipalaia was fixed to NITC to be employed as floating storage off Kharg Island, Iran on a 60 day period charter, during which time the “technical holds” were dealt with and lifted. She completed the NITC fixture and was redelivered at Fujairah on 29 June 2008 after which she resumed her normal pattern of spot trading.
Accordingly, despite the time in dry dock only lasting some 10 days, Astipalaia was effectively unavailable for her primary trading market for the entire period from 26 March 2008 to 29 June 2008. Astipalaia brought a claim for loss of profits based on what the vessel would have earned had she traded on the normal VLCC spot market during that period, giving credit for the mitigation earnings obtained while on charter as floating storage to NITC. The total amount claimed by Astipalaia was approximately US$5,640,000 lost income during that period.
The Reference to the Registrar
Following agreement on liability, the quantum of Astipalaia’s claim was disputed and referred for determination by the Admiralty Registrar. The Court had to consider how to calculate loss of earnings of Astipalaia in circumstances where (1) the vessel did not have a specific next fixture concluded at the time of the collision such that there was no certainty as to what the vessel would have earned next, but for the collision, and (2) the vessel’s oil major approvals had been placed on “technical hold” and were not reinstated until the end of a less lucrative storage fixture.
Astipalaia’s position
Astipalaia’s Owners contended that damages should be assessed on the basis that the best evidence of Astipalaia’s potential earnings, but for the collision, were that Astipalaia would either (i) have been fixed to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) with whom they had been negotiating for a West Africa-East Coast India fixture at the time of the collision, after which Astipalaia would have resumed a ‘typical’ spot trading pattern of a round voyage from Arabian Gulf (AG) to the Far East, or (ii) had Owners not secured the IOC fixture, the vessel would have undertaken two AG-Far East round voyages. Under either alternative, these two hypothetical voyages would have been completed within roughly the same period of time as the detention period, i.e. by 29 June 2008, such that a reasonable comparison could be drawn between what the vessel could have earned during that period, with what she did in fact earn.
Astipalaia’s Owners relied on the “time equalisation method” set out in The Vicky 1 [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 45, which they argued supported their approach of comparing what the vessel would probably have earned but for the collision with what she did in fact earn in the same period. The hypothetical voyage schedule advocated by the Astipalaia’s Owners and prepared by their expert sought to provide comparable fixtures she could (but not necessarily would) have performed in the detention period in order to place a value on the vessel’s lost earnings. On that basis Astipalaia claimed damages of approximately US$5,640,000.
Hanjin Shenzhen’s position
In the Vicky 1, the claimant tanker owners had lost an actual fixture. Hanjin Shenzhen’s Owners argued that the principles from Vicky 1 only applied if the claimant ship owner had lost a secured fixture, not where there was no definite next business secured.
Their primary case was that the loss period should be split into two distinct periods: (i) the period during which the vessel was completely out of service, when repairs were being completed; and (ii) the period during which she performed the floating storage charter. On that basis, Hanjin Shenzhen argued that whilst they were liable in damages for lost income for approximately US$800,000 for period (i) during the dry docking, by the time of the floating storage charter being entered into after dry docking the spot market had in fact fallen such that no damages were recoverable for period (ii) as the rates achieved under the floating storage business successfully mitigated Astipalaia’s loss.
Hanjin Shenzhen interests also opposed the “time equalisation method” of seeking to model hypothetical voyages on the basis that it was too speculative to seek to calculate when the vessel might have been back in the AG after the first hypothetical voyage, and what the spot rate might have been at that time for the second hypothetical voyage.
During proceedings it was accepted by both experts that VLCCs operate in a well-defined and straightforward trading pattern. The largest loading area (around 72% of all VLCC cargoes) is the AG followed by West Africa, with a limited number of cargoes loading in the Caribbean or North Sea/Mediterranean. The Registrar accepted this evidence, and further evidence that of the 72% of cargoes lifted from the AG, around 70% of those cargoes are for Far East discharge. Accordingly, it could be established on the balance of probabilities what sort of business the vessel most likely would/could have achieved during the total detention period.
The Admiralty Court decision
The Registrar considered and analysed various leading cases, including The Argentino (1888) 13 PD 191 (C/A), 14 App Cas 519 (H/L), The Soya [1956] 1 WLR 714 (C/A) and The Vicky 1 [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 (C/A).
Having done so, the Registrar accepted Astipalaia’s approach to assessing damages. The court upheld Astipalaia’s argument that the detention period should include not only the repair period but also the additional period the vessel needed to obtain reinstatement of oil major approvals before returning to her normal employment, and that this detention period should be taken as a single period finishing on 29 June 2008, not broken into two parts. The arguments on behalf of Hanjin Shenzhen that there were principles of law curtailing or precluding such an assessment were rejected.
On the basis of the expert evidence before him, the Registrar assessed damages in the total sum of approximately US$ 4,960,000 (a loss of earnings of US$ 9,860,000 less US$ 4,900,000) earned during the floating storage contract.
Comment
This Judgment confirms that an owner can claim damages not just for the immediate loss of use of the vessel during the period of repairs but also for further knock-on effects to the vessel’s ability to return to normal trading, provided of course that such knock-on effects are not too remote or unforeseeable and that the loss can be proven by evidence.
The Judgment also confirms that there is no set rule as to the recoverability of damages for loss of use, and that such recovery is not dependent on proof of a specific lost fixture, nor (if such a fixture is established) that damages are limited to that one fixture but no more.
While there is no set methodology for calculating loss of profits, the methodologies used in earlier cases may be adapted to suit the facts of each case. The principles applied in this case were ultimately the same as those applied in The Vicky 1 and can be said to represent a recognised and well principled approach to modelling a vessel’s likely earnings over a given period which properly takes into account the relevant market position as at the time the hypothetical voyages would have been fixed.
It should be noted, however, that proving one’s loss may be more difficult in other trades. The VLCC trade is sufficiently well established and ‘predictable’, with enough data published, to allow a meaningful expert analysis of what the vessel could have earned. It would be more difficult to undertake the same exercise for ships with a more varied and unpredictable trading pattern.
Source: Ince & Co / Hellenic Shipping News
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Monday, 23 June 14
INDONESIAN COAL SWAP FOR Q3 DELIVERY LOST 8.60% Y-O-Y;4.80% M-O-M
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 lost on day, week and on month according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports re ...
Monday, 23 June 14
COAL SWAPS DROPS FURTHER MONTH ON MONTH ON WEAK DEMAND
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 6.91 percent month on month and closed at US$ 69.00 per mt a ...
Sunday, 22 June 14
THE PANAMAX COAL FREIGHT FROM INDONESIA TO INDIA SLIPPED THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: The Baltic Exchange's main sea freight index, which tracks rates for ships carrying dry bulk commodities, fell slightly on Friday ...
Friday, 20 June 14
DRY BULK MARKET LOOKING FOR UPSIDE ON ROBUST SEABORNE IRON ORE TRADE - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market hasn’t been able to justify the heightened expectations this year. Yesterday, the Baltic Dry Index managed to inch forwar ...
Friday, 20 June 14
US WEEKLY COAL PRODUCTION DROPS 1.8% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.3 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
|
|
|
Showing 3646 to 3650 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Australian Coal Association
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- PTC India Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- The University of Queensland
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
