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.
|
|
Wednesday, 02 April 14
BPI BREAKING BELOW THE 1,000 PSYCHOLOGICAL LEVELS - INTERMODAL
Any resistance put forth by the Dry Bulk market the week prior was succumbed this time round. All indices slid and losses were noted across the ...
Tuesday, 01 April 14
NEWCASTLE PORT SHIPPED 11.95 MILLION TONS OF COAL IN MARCH 2014
COALspot.com: In the week ended 31 March 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, total 2 ...
Monday, 31 March 14
SHIPPING CONFIDENCE HITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 2008 - MOORE STEPHENS
Overall confidence levels in the shipping industry rose to their highest level for almost six years in the three-month period to February 2014, ...
Monday, 31 March 14
COAL SWAP FOR Q1 2015 DELIVERY HAS CLOSED 4.76% HIGHER COMPARED Q2 14 CLOSING
COALspot.com – Indonesia, the world’s largest exporter of the thermal coal's swaps for delivery April - June 2014 gained this pa ...
Monday, 31 March 14
CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAP FOR Q2 14 DELIVERY LOST 1.17% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q2 14 deliveries lost 1.17 percent month on month and closed at US$ 75.38 per m ...
|
|
|
Showing 3771 to 3775 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Australian Coal Association
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- The University of Queensland
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- MS Steel International - UAE
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
