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.
|
|
Tuesday, 08 April 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 2.90 MMT OF POWER PLANT AND SEMI-SOFT COKING COAL IN A WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 07:00 hours 7 April 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensla ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
RBCT SHIPPED 53.79% MORE COAL IN MARCH 2014
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest export coal terminal in the world, shipped 6.90 million to ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
APRIL 2014 INDONESIAN COAL PRICE REFERENCE DROPS TO LOWEST SINCE JANUARY 2010
COALspot.com - The Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources of Indonesia has revised down again the coal bench mark price by US$ 2.20 / MT to ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
TALKING ABOUT A ONE-HORSE RACE - GEORGE LAZARIDIS
Ever since the onslaught of the financial crisis, China along with the other BRIICs, have played a pivotal role in supporting global economic gr ...
Monday, 07 April 14
WEEKLY SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP CLAIMS EDGE FALL; TREND NEGATIVE
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q4’ 2014 lost on month, day and on week according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports ...
|
|
|
Showing 3761 to 3765 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- The University of Queensland
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- PTC India Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- VISA Power Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
