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, 05 May 14
HUANENG CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE HAS CONFIRMED TO SPEAK AT CCF2014
Press Release: Produced by CDMC Events, The 13th Clean Coal Forum 2014 will be held on June 12,13, 2014 in Beijing, China. We are glad to invite ...
Monday, 05 May 14
SUB BIT-FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAPS LOST GROUND LAST 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 ...
Monday, 05 May 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP FOR AVERAGE Q3 14 DELIVERIES: LOST 0.82% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q3 14 deliveries lost 0.82 percent month on month and closed at US$ 75.20 per mt as o ...
Sunday, 04 May 14
INDONESIA TO INDIA FREIGHT RATES ARE SHOWING POSITIVE TREND
COALspot.com: The freight market is seems to be some recovery as cape index has increased by 7.84 pct week on week. Cape index closed at 1829 po ...
Friday, 02 May 14
ADARO ENERGY STARTS YEAR 2014 WELL DESPITE CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
COALspot.com: Adaro Energy, the second largest Indonesian coal miner's revenue increased 14% to US$ 845 million due to higher sales volume, ...
|
|
|
Showing 3721 to 3725 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- PTC India Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- The University of Queensland
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- White Energy Company Limited
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
|
| |
| |
|
