Following a collision between ships - even after getting the apportionment heavily in one's favor, claiming for losses sustained may not be that straight forward, as seen in The Alexandra 1 [2019].
There were questions on reasonableness of choosing a more expensive repair yard, and methodology used in calculation of damages for loss of use, but the principal issue was the impact of the impecuniosity of her owner (inability to pay for repairs) on damages recoverable.
As for repair yard – it was reasonable to choose Dubai over Bahrain on safety grounds, given its proximity. For loss of use claim, owners of other vessel wanted this to be scrapped completely as Alexandra 1’s owners had not disclosed the trading history for the preceding year. The court allowed the claim and relied on experts’ analysis on TCE earnings.
As regards, extended loss claim stemming from owners’ impecuniosity (as hull uw refused to pay them because of "Iranian" nexus), court found no (collision) causation. Moreover her owners had delayed concluding credit terms with the repair yard. Another head of claim refused by court was the diminution in value of vsl (due to attachment of permanent stigma). Worth a mention - claim for air freight of windlass (+$32k) failed on grounds of reasonableness.
Comments