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, 26 May 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDO COAL SWAP Q1' 15 DELIVERIES CLOSED AT US$ 59.40 PER MT
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, 26 May 14
Q3 14 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS LOST 2.24% MONTH ON MONTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 2.24 percent month on month and closed at US$ 73.88 per mt as on F ...
Monday, 26 May 14
NEWBUILDING ORDERING ACTIVITY RISES BY 78% IN DWT TONNAGE OVER THE FIRST 4 MONTHS OF THE YEARS, AS OWNERS INVEST$40.5 BN - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Ship owners have plunged into newbuilding orders during the first four months of the year, as overall newbuilding business ended for the first four ...
Sunday, 25 May 14
FREIGHT RATES FROM SOUTH KALIMANTAN TO EAST COAST INDIAN PORTS WERE ASSESSED AT $9.50/MT
COALspot.com: The BDI was closed at 964 points down by 6.13 pct week on week. The Cape Index was lost 172 points or 11.24% week on week and closing ...
Saturday, 24 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET'S RECOVERY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER SAYS SHIPOWNER - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Despite the weaker than expected market sentiment in the dry bulk market over the course of the past few months, analysts and shipowners alike appe ...
|
|
|
Showing 3686 to 3690 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- White Energy Company Limited
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- The University of Queensland
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
