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, 12 May 14
TAIPOWER TO IMPORT AROUND 1 MMT OF SUB-BITUMINOUS COAL DURING AUGUST 2014 THROUGH NOVEMBER 2014
COALspot.com - Taiwan Power Company intends to procure 1.050 million tons of sub-bituminous coal for Taipower thermal power plant through open t ...
Monday, 12 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET IS STILL STRUGGLING TO FIND FIRM FOOTING
COALspot.com: The freight market continued to be weak and the BDI closed slightly lower at 997 points or fell 1.96 pct week on week. The cape in ...
Friday, 09 May 14
RBCT SHIPPED 5.4 MMT OF COAL IN APRIL
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest coal export terminal in the world, shipped 5.45 million to ...
Friday, 09 May 14
DRY BULK MARKET: BANKRUPTCY TONNAGE UNLEASHED
Drewry’s latest Dry Bulk Forecaster saw freight rates on most routes declined in 2014’s first quarter as the previous quarter’ ...
Friday, 09 May 14
UNITED STATES COAL PRODUCTION SLIGHTLY SLIDES TO 82.4 MMST IN APRIL
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.8 million short tons (mmst) of coal i ...
|
|
|
Showing 3711 to 3715 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- The University of Queensland
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- PTC India Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
|
| |
| |
|
