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.
|
|
Tuesday, 08 April 14
PORT OF NEWCASTLE SHIPPED 2.90 MMT OF POWER PLANT AND SEMI-SOFT COKING COAL IN A WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 07:00 hours 7 April 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensla ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
RBCT SHIPPED 53.79% MORE COAL IN MARCH 2014
COALspot.com: South Africa's Richards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT) the single largest export coal terminal in the world, shipped 6.90 million to ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
APRIL 2014 INDONESIAN COAL PRICE REFERENCE DROPS TO LOWEST SINCE JANUARY 2010
COALspot.com - The Ministry of Energy & Mineral Resources of Indonesia has revised down again the coal bench mark price by US$ 2.20 / MT to ...
Tuesday, 08 April 14
TALKING ABOUT A ONE-HORSE RACE - GEORGE LAZARIDIS
Ever since the onslaught of the financial crisis, China along with the other BRIICs, have played a pivotal role in supporting global economic gr ...
Monday, 07 April 14
WEEKLY SUB-BIT FOB INDONESIA COAL SWAP CLAIMS EDGE FALL; TREND NEGATIVE
COALspot.com: Indonesian coal swaps for average Q4’ 2014 lost on month, day and on week according to AsiaClear OTC coal swap's reports ...
|
|
|
Showing 3761 to 3765 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- VISA Power Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- PTC India Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Planning Commission, India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
