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, 25 April 14
US PRODUCED APPROXIMATELY 19 MILLION SHORT TONS OF COAL IN A WEEK
COALspot.com – United States the world's second largest coal producer, produced approximately 19.0 million short tons (mmst) of coal i ...
Friday, 25 April 14
2ND MYANMAR ELECTRIC POWER CONVENTION 2014 IS THE GATEWAY TO MYANMAR POWER INDUSTRY!
Press Release: 2nd Myanmar Electric Power Convention (MEPC) 2014 is scheduled on 21-23 October, 2014 at Traders Hotel in Yangon, Myanmar. MEPC o ...
Friday, 25 April 14
DRY BULK MARKET LOOKING FOR NEW TRACTION - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market seems to have gained its footing after the past few dissapointing weeks, during which the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) shedded mos ...
Thursday, 24 April 14
HANDY : A FLOW OF FRESH REQUIREMENTS LIFTING THE PACIFIC SLOWLY TO US$ 10-11 K BSS SINGAPORE FOR COAL ROUNDS
Handy
There is still no place to hide in the Atlantic for the smaller but flexible sizes. Slow and weak seems to be the headlines, although th ...
Wednesday, 23 April 14
EUROPE WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO REPLACE RUSSIAN GAS, FITCH RATINGS SAYS
A ban on Russian gas imports to the EU would cause substantial disruption to Europe's economy and industry, Fitch Ratings says. In the immed ...
|
|
|
Showing 3736 to 3740 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- PTC India Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Australian Coal Association
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- White Energy Company Limited
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Planning Commission, India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
