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.
|
|
Thursday, 20 March 14
CAPESIZE: WEST AUSTRALIA TO CHINA RATES HAVE CLIMBED BACK TOWARD USD 11 PMT - FEARNRESEARCH
Handy
From a slight improvement in the Atlantic to a more mixed picture this mid week. North Atlantic rounds showing softening signs whereas S ...
Wednesday, 19 March 14
INSTEAD OF DECIDING WHETHER THE GLASS IS HALF FULL OR HALF EMPTY, I AM CURRENTLY GLAD THERE IS WATER IN THE GLASS - EVA TZIMA
By Eva Tzima
Research Analyst
Intermodal Research & Valuations
Right when you think that you have all your facts straight, right wh ...
Wednesday, 19 March 14
EUROCOKE SUMMIT 2014
Press Release: ThyssenKrupp, Steel Institute VDEh, SSI and more headline Smithers Apex’s Eurocoke Summit
The leading coke, coal and s ...
Wednesday, 19 March 14
DRY BULK MARKET REBOUND LEADS TO MORE NEWBUILDING ORDERS - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The steady rise of the dry bulk market, as evidenced by the return, yesterday, of the Baltic Dry Index above the 1,500-point mark (1,518), is fu ...
Tuesday, 18 March 14
SECOND QUARTER SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP LOST 3.27% IN A MONTH
COALspot.com – Indonesia, the world’s largest exporter of the thermal coal's swaps for delivery April - June 2014 gained this pa ...
|
|
|
Showing 3791 to 3795 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Planning Commission, India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- PTC India Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- White Energy Company Limited
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
|
| |
| |
|
