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, 24 February 14
DRY BULK MARKET TO IMPROVE OVER THE COURSE OF 2014, BUT OVERSUPPLY STILL AN ISSUE SAYS BIMCO'S CHIEF SHIPPING ANALYST
As a gruelling first quarter edges closer to the end, dry bulk ship owners are looking at an improved second quarter demand, which, coupled with slo ...
Monday, 24 February 14
INDONESIAN SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL SWAP FOR DELIVERY APRIL - JUNE 2014 SLIDES TO $ 58.60 PMT
COALspot.com – Indonesia, the world’s the largest exporter of the thermal coal's swaps for delivery April - June 2014 slide week ended ...
Monday, 24 February 14
Q1 2015 DELIVERY COAL SWAP CLOSED AT 2.62% HIGHER THAN Q2 2014 CLOSING SWAPS
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q2 14 deliveries lost 2.68 percent month on month and closed at US$ 76.20 per mt as on Fr ...
Saturday, 22 February 14
SHIPPING POISED TO RALLY AFTER SEVERAL WEEKS OF DROP
COALspot.com: The freight market was steady to firm with the dry bulk index up by 6.24 pct closing at 1,175 points week on week and the cape index w ...
Saturday, 22 February 14
POTEN RAISES THE QUESTION OF ACCURACY IN CALCULATING TANKER FREIGHT RATES - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
As the tanker market has grown in complexity over the course of the past few years, the question of whether the traditional methods of assessing rat ...
|
|
|
Showing 3836 to 3840 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Australian Coal Association
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- The University of Queensland
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Planning Commission, India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
|
| |
| |
|
