Shipping: how do you calculate loss of earnings following a collision?
The case of Astipalaia v Hanjin Shenzhen  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.
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…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
Affected parties must think about who will be the ’operator’ for the purposes of the new European regulations.
The commercial understanding of the phrases ‘as is’ or ‘as is where is’ has always been that a buyer must take a yacht in the condition in which she is found at the time defined in the contract.