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.
|
|
Friday, 20 December 13
US PRODUCED 2.71% MORE COAL WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world’s second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.9 million short tons (mmst) of coal in ...
Friday, 20 December 13
DRY BULK MARKET SLUMPS AHEAD OF HOLIDAY SEASON - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
As has been the case in recent years, the dry bulk market has been on a downward trend ahead of the Holiday Season for a large part of the world. Th ...
Thursday, 19 December 13
SHIPPING CONFIDENCE HITS THREE-YEAR HIGH - MOORE STEPHENS
Overall confidence levels in the shipping industry rose to their highest level for more than three years over the three-month period to November 201 ...
Wednesday, 18 December 13
SNP ACTIVITY IN CHINA SEEMS TO BE SLOWING DOWN - CHRISTOS TRAGEAS
Approaching the end of the year, SnP activity in China seems to be slowing down in comparison to the first half of this quarter, as most Chinese Shi ...
Wednesday, 18 December 13
DEMOLITION ACTIVITY SCALED BACK AS FREIGHT RATES RISE - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
It's always been the case that each time we witness a spike in freight rates, demolition activity is decreasing, as owners are looking for more car ...
|
|
|
Showing 3946 to 3950 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- PTC India Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Australian Coal Association
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
|
| |
| |
|
