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, 26 May 14
SUB-BIT FOB INDO COAL SWAP Q1' 15 DELIVERIES CLOSED AT US$ 59.40 PER MT
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, 26 May 14
Q3 14 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS LOST 2.24% MONTH ON MONTH
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 2.24 percent month on month and closed at US$ 73.88 per mt as on F ...
Monday, 26 May 14
NEWBUILDING ORDERING ACTIVITY RISES BY 78% IN DWT TONNAGE OVER THE FIRST 4 MONTHS OF THE YEARS, AS OWNERS INVEST$40.5 BN - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Ship owners have plunged into newbuilding orders during the first four months of the year, as overall newbuilding business ended for the first four ...
Sunday, 25 May 14
FREIGHT RATES FROM SOUTH KALIMANTAN TO EAST COAST INDIAN PORTS WERE ASSESSED AT $9.50/MT
COALspot.com: The BDI was closed at 964 points down by 6.13 pct week on week. The Cape Index was lost 172 points or 11.24% week on week and closing ...
Saturday, 24 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET'S RECOVERY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER SAYS SHIPOWNER - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
Despite the weaker than expected market sentiment in the dry bulk market over the course of the past few months, analysts and shipowners alike appe ...
|
|
|
Showing 3686 to 3690 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- PTC India Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
