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, 30 January 14
PANAMAX MARKET IS SOFTENING ON LESS ACTIVITY IN BOTH HEMISPHERES - FEARNRESEARCH
Handy
In the Atlantic rates have been slowly sliding but ows can still achieve decent money for TArv´s. USG positions still being fixed in re ...
Thursday, 30 January 14
TANKER PROFITABILITY IS THE 'MILLION-DOLLAR' QUESTION FOR SHIP OWNERS THIS YEAR - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The tanker market conditions are expected to remain challenging throughout the year for tanker owners, but even more pressing will be the issue of a ...
Tuesday, 28 January 14
GLOBAL COKING AND STEAM COAL PRODUCTION HAVE GROWN 2% TO 3% TO ABOUT 7.1 BILLION TONNES AS OF THE END OF 2013 - VDKI
COALspot.com (Press Release): Initial figures on the world hard coal market at the VDKi ((Association of Coal Importers - German) New Year’s R ...
Tuesday, 28 January 14
AUSTRALIAN NEWCASTLE PORT'S WEEKLY COAL EXPORTS JUMP 13.75% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 27 January 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, totalled ...
Tuesday, 28 January 14
RESOURCE NATIONALISM OR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE MINING AND EXTRACTIVES INDUSTRY - JOHN WHITTAKER & MICHAEL SWANGARD
Resource nationalism or protectionism for the mining and extractives industry as well as soft commodities sector and the oil industry.
‘Res ...
|
|
|
Showing 3876 to 3880 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Planning Commission, India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
