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, 30 May 14
US COAL PRODUCTION RELATIVELY FLAT WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.6 million short tons (mmst) of coal in a ...
Thursday, 29 May 14
PEABODY ENERGY CHAIRMAN RECEIVES WCA AWARD
The World Coal Association has presented Gregory H. Boyce, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), with the 2014 Chairm ...
Thursday, 29 May 14
HANDY : THE SUPRAS ARE BEING TRADED AROUND 13K FOR SHORTER UPTO 1 YEAR PERIOD
Handy
The week started off with bank holidays in London and very little happening. This trend has continued and we believe it will continue into ...
Wednesday, 28 May 14
THE DRY BULK MARKET REMAINED UNDER PRESSURE - INTERMODAL
COALspot.com: The Dry Bulk market remained under pressure during this past week, with all indices pointing down compared to the previous Friday. Th ...
Tuesday, 27 May 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 19.13% LESS COAL THIS PAST WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 07:00 hours 26 May 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, ...
|
|
|
Showing 3681 to 3685 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Planning Commission, India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Parliament of New Zealand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
