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.
|
|
Sunday, 23 March 14
THE COAL FREIGHT RATES SEEN SLIGHTLY FIRMING UP THIS WEEK - REDDY
COALspot.com: The freight market firmed up this week. BDI was up 8.26 pct week on week and index was closed at 1599 points. The Cape index was u ...
Saturday, 22 March 14
SHIP OWNERS INVEST $15 BILLION FOR NEWBUILDINGS AND SECONDHAND VESSELS DURING FEBRUARY - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Ship owners have kept on their aggressive stance in the investment scene both for newbuildings, as well as for secondhand vessels globally durin ...
Friday, 21 March 14
DRY BULK MARKET STAYS ON RECOVERY MODE - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market has reached new year heighs, as a result of renewed Capesize demand. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) ended yesterday's sessio ...
Friday, 21 March 14
US COAL PRODUCTION UP 1.5%; WEST MISSISSIPPI COAL PRODUCTION DOWN 1.85% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.0 million short tons (mmst) of coal i ...
Friday, 21 March 14
MERCURIA ANNOUNCES ACQUISITION OF J.P. MORGAN PHYSICAL COMMODITIES BUSINESS
COALspot.com: Mercuria Energy Group announced that it has reached a definitive agreement with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. to acquire its physica ...
|
|
|
Showing 3786 to 3790 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Australian Coal Association
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Planning Commission, India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
|
| |
| |
|
