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, 09 June 14
INDO SUB-BIT COAL SWAPS FOR Q3,Q4 OF 2014 AND Q1 2015: LOST ON DAY AND MONTH
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 continue last week’s trend or lost on day, week and on month according to Asia ...
Monday, 09 June 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP Q3 14 DELIVERIES LOST 4.61% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 4.61 percent month on month and closed at US$ 71.62 per mt a ...
Sunday, 08 June 14
DRY BULK MARKET RATES FOR PANAMXES TO REMAIN VOLATILE; NO IMPROVEMENTS SEEN OVER THE WEEK
COALspot.com: Cape index increase pushes BDI index to 989 points week on week. The BDI firmed up by 5.88 pct and closed at 989 points week ended 6 ...
Saturday, 07 June 14
EVERYTHING CHANGES, AND NOTHING ABIDES - HERACLITUS
A couple of weeks ago, and while everyone was focusing on the struggling freight market, Russia and China made history by signing a three-decade lo ...
Saturday, 07 June 14
FIRST BITE AT ANTI-CORRUPTION CLAUSE - BIMCO
In recent years a number of countries have introduced anti-corruption legislation which, unfortunately, fails to recognise the practical implicatio ...
|
|
|
Showing 3666 to 3670 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- White Energy Company Limited
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
