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.
|
|
Wednesday, 04 June 14
SKULD: DIVERSIFICATION AND A ROBUST BOTTOM LINE
In February, I was delighted to ring in the new policy year with the Skuld team following a solid renewal round and a strong year. 2013 was, in man ...
Monday, 02 June 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAPS LOST GROUND THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q3’ 2014 lost on day, week and on month according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports re ...
Monday, 02 June 14
SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP WAS SHOWING A POSITIVE MOVE IN Q4, INSTEAD OF THIS WEEK'S WEAK TREND
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 3.39 percent month on month and closed at US$ 72.65 per mt as on F ...
Sunday, 01 June 14
INDO - INDIA SUPRMAX FREIGHT RATES CONTINUED TO DOWN THIS WEEK
COALspot.com: The freight market was soft this past week as all sectors soften particularly Panamax index was lost 129 points or 12.88% week on wee ...
Friday, 30 May 14
CLEAN COAL PROCESSING & CONVERSION ASIA SUMMIT 2014
Clean Coal Processing & Conversion Asia Summit 2014 will be held on Nov 20-21st, 2014 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
With the cooperation of ...
|
|
|
Showing 3676 to 3680 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Australian Coal Association
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
|
| |
| |
|
