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.
|
|
Friday, 25 April 14
US PRODUCED APPROXIMATELY 19 MILLION SHORT TONS OF COAL IN A WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.0 million short tons (mmst) of coal i ...
Friday, 25 April 14
2ND MYANMAR ELECTRIC POWER CONVENTION 2014 IS THE GATEWAY TO MYANMAR POWER INDUSTRY!
Press Release: 2nd Myanmar Electric Power Convention (MEPC) 2014 is scheduled on 21-23 October, 2014 at Traders Hotel in Yangon, Myanmar. MEPC o ...
Friday, 25 April 14
DRY BULK MARKET LOOKING FOR NEW TRACTION - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market seems to have gained its footing after the past few dissapointing weeks, during which the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) shedded mos ...
Thursday, 24 April 14
HANDY : A FLOW OF FRESH REQUIREMENTS LIFTING THE PACIFIC SLOWLY TO US$ 10-11 K BSS SINGAPORE FOR COAL ROUNDS
Handy
There is still no place to hide in the Atlantic for the smaller but flexible sizes. Slow and weak seems to be the headlines, although th ...
Wednesday, 23 April 14
EUROPE WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO REPLACE RUSSIAN GAS, FITCH RATINGS SAYS
A ban on Russian gas imports to the EU would cause substantial disruption to Europe's economy and industry, Fitch Ratings says. In the immed ...
|
|
|
Showing 3736 to 3740 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- The University of Queensland
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- PTC India Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
|
| |
| |
|
