the longchamp hk - averageadj.com
TRANSCRIPT
3/23/18
1
SUBSTITUTED EXPENSES IN GENERAL AVERAGEper York-Antwerp Rules
20th March 2018
- Workshop
THELONGCHAMP
No.1ConferenceRoom
37/F.,ChinaMerchantsTower
HongKong
TheInstituteofSeatransportwouldexpressheartfelt
gratitudetotheChinaMerchantsGroup
forthesupportthroughout
VENUE
3/23/18
2
SPEAKER:RAYMONDTCWONG� •Fullyqualifiedin1980bystringentexamination,becomingthefirstChineseFellowoftheBritishAssociationofAverageAdjusters(better-knownasAAA).HeiscurrentlysittingontheAdvisory&DisputeResolutionPaneloftheAAA.•Raymondstartedhiscareerin1966withtheoldestaverageadjustingfirm,WilliamRichards&Sons(currentlynamedRichardsHoggLindley).HewasanequitypartnerofRichardsHoggpriortoitsincorporationandfollowingitsacquisitionbyCharlesTaylorplc.,hewasappointedtositonthelatter’sBoardofDirectors,1999/2008.Sinceretirementfromthefirmhehadworkedforsome45years,Raymondhascontinuedhisserviceandcommitmenttothemaritimeandinsurancecommunitiesandlaunched,inconjunctionwithcolleaguesintheregion,theaverageadjustingservicesundertheumbrellaofAsiaMaritimeAdjusting(HongKong)withinTCWong AverageConsultingLtd.•Raymondisaregularlecturer/speakerongeneralaverageandmaritimeclaimsrelatedtopics.HeisafoundermemberandformerchairmanofMarineInsuranceClub(establishedin1979);currentlychairmanofInstituteofSeatransport (establishedin1984)whichisaninstitutionalmemberoftheHongKongMaritimeandPortBoard,anhonorary advisoroftheHKLogisticManagementStaffAssociation(establishedin1986),andafoundermemberofHKMaritimeLawAssociation(establishedin1987).
http://www.averageadj.com
THELONGCHAMP
• Recapitulation
• Legalposition- English
• York-AntwerpRulesvaryposition
• ExamplesandPractice
• Law-v- Practice
• Precedentlawcases
• “TheLongchamp”
• CasualtyandGAAdjustmentperYAR1974
• ViewsofAAAAdvisoryCommittee
• TheHighCourtDecision[2014]
• TheCourtofAppealDecision[2016]
• TheSupremeCourtDecision[2017]
• Note-worthyissues
• ReportofAAAAdvisoryCommittee
• QuestionsandFeedbacksfrom
participants
AGENDA
3/23/18
3
THELONGCHAMP
”Asthenameimplies,substituted
expensesaretheexpensesincurredin
respectofacourseofactionundertaken
asanalternativeto- orinsubstitution
for– theexpensethatwouldbeallowableasgeneralaverage.”
F.0114th EditionofLowndes&Rudolf
Theterm “hypotheticalalternative”courseofactionreferstoonewherethe
expensewouldhavebeenallowableas
GA.
SUBSTITUTEDEXPENSES����
THELONGCHAMP
WilsonvBankofVictoria(1867)
• Pre-datestheYork-AntwerpRules
• Auxiliarysailingship
• Voyage:AustraliatoBritain(laden)
• Struckiceberg,sustaineddamage,demasted
• PutintoRiodeJaneiro
• Viewprohibitivepermanentrepaircost,only
TemporaryRepairseffectedto
• allowvesseltoproceedtodestinationundersteam
requiringcoalpurchasedatRioandFayal
• Ship-ownersclaimedcostofcoalpurchasedas
substitutedexpensesinlieuofexpensesotherwise
incurredhadPRbeeneffectedatRio
Held:Claimdisallowed– useofauxiliaryenginetobring
vesselhomeandconsequentexpenditureoncoal,was
merelyperformanceofaservicebyShip-ownerstoCargo
carried- thereforenotasubjectofcontribution.
NottenableatEnglishlaw
3/23/18
4
Thelosswouldbeadjustedasfollows:
Ship…………………….. 200 pays 67 50 MerchantA……….……. 100 pays 33 25 MerchantC……….……. 300 pays 100 75
600
MerchantB(jettisoned andmadegood)……… 200 pays -- 50 800 pays 200 200
Everyone whose property had been at risk sustained the same degree ofloss, i.e. 25%.
8
APPORTIONMENT OF GA
3/23/18
5
THELONGCHAMP
• Asystemofmakinggoodmaritime
lossesbasedonequity,equity beingthekeyword.
• Extraordinarysacrificeorexpenditure
voluntarilyandreasonablymadeor
incurredintimeofperiltopreserve
propertyimperiledinthecommon
adventure.
• ObjectofGAActmustbethe
preservationofthewholeadventure.
• Adventureorsomepartthereofmust
besaved.
WhatisGeneralAverage?
3/23/18
6
THELONGCHAMP
THEYORK-ANTWERPRULES
The internationally accepted code of rulessetting out
• what losses and expenses are admissible in general average, and
• how they are to be apportioned between ship and cargo interests etc.
YorkRules1864York/AntwerpRules1877YAR1890YAR1924YAR1950YAR1974YAR1974asamended1990YAR1994YAR2004YAR2016
CMI – Comite MaritimeInternational������ thecustodiansYARnotaConventionIncorporationbyreferenceinContractofCarriage
THELONGCHAMP
RuleFofYork-AntwerpRules
RuleF- Anyextra expenseincurred
inplaceof anotherexpensewhich
wouldhavebeenallowableas
generalaverage shallbedeemedto
begeneralaverageandsoallowed
withoutregardtothesaving,ifany,tootherinterests,butonlyupto theamountofthegeneralaverage
expenseavoided.
N.B.“extra”replacedby“additional”since1994
3/23/18
7
THELONGCHAMP
RuleF– Philosophy&Principle
(pre“Longchamp”)
“Forthisruletohaveanyapplicationtheremust
havebeenanalternativecourse which,ifadoptedwouldhaveinvolvedexpenditure
whichcouldproperlybechargedtogeneral
average.”
F.2914th EditionofLowndes&Rudolf
“AlthoughRuleFisphrasedintermswhichrefer
totheincurringoftheexpense,itsapplication
inpracticepresupposesachoicebetween two
(andsomemore)differentcourses ofaction.”
11.354th EditionofHudson&Harvey
THELONGCHAMP
Requirements(generallyaccepted)
• Itdealswith“expense”– not“loss”
• Onlyexpensesthatare“extra”(i.e.additionalandnotextraordinary)qualify– butexcludinganyordinaryvoyageexpensesaved
• Theremusthavebeenanalternativecourseofaction,thatifadopted,wouldhaveresultedinexpensewhichcouldproperlybeallowableinGA
• Extra/additionalexpensesmusthavebeenincurredinplaceofthealternativecourseofaction
• Also,needtosatisfytherequirementslaidout
intheYARasawhole,e.g.
RuleA– reasonable(natureandquantum)
RuleC– excludesindirectliabilities, delay,etc.
3/23/18
8
THELONGCHAMP
Examples
•Workingovertimeonrepairs
•Dry-dockingwithcargoonboard•Towagetodestination•Forwardcargotodestination•Temporaryrepairs– RuleXIV
Toidentifythe“hypothetical
alternatives”ineachcase.
THELONGCHAMP
Practice-v- Law“…,thelawcannotbedecidedbywhatisunderstoodamong
writersandpractitionersintherelevantfield...Experienceshows
thatinmanyareasofpracticalandprofessionalendeavour
generallyacceptedpointsofprincipleandpractice,whentested
incourt,sometimesturnouttobeunsustainable. Iacceptthatit
mayberightforacourttohaveregardtopracticeswhichhave
developedandprincipleswhichhavebeenadoptedby
practitioners,buttheycannotdeterminetheoutcomewhenthe
issueisultimatelyoneofLaw.”
LordNeubergerin“TheLongchamp”[2017]
“…Intheabsenceofacomprehensivebodyofcaselaw(general
averagerarelyreachesthecourts),adjustershaveavarietyof
practicesorrulesofthumbtosupplementtheRules.Thisis
perhapsinevitable,butsuchpracticesarenotlawandthereisa
tendencyinthisfieldforthemtolosesightofthebasicconcepts
expressedintheRulesthemselves.”
LordSumption in“TheLongchamp”[2017]
3/23/18
9
THELONGCHAMP
Vlassopoulos v.British&Foreign• Vessel’sforemastcollapsedatloadingport
• Derrickfellintohold
• Repairsnecessaryforsafeprosecutionofvoyage
• AllowanceforexpensesperRules10&11(intention)
• Butvesselandcargonotinperilwhilstatport
• Held:LetteredRulesconstitutethegeneralprincipleswhicharetobeapplied,towhichthenumberedRules
weresubservient.
Ø The“Makis”Agreement(BritishShip-owners&
Underwriters)
“ExceptasprovidedintheNumberedRules1to23
inclusive,theAdjustmentshallbedrawnupinaccordance
withtheLetteredRulesAtoGinclusive.”
• LeadingtointroductionofaRuleofInterpretationincludedinthe1950YAR
The“Makis”(1929)
THELONGCHAMP
CorfuNavigationv.MobilShipping• VesselgroundedatsankbankintheRiverZaire
• Vesselandcargoinperil
• Masterusedengineinefforttorefloat causing
substantialdamages– unskilfulandnegligent
• DamagesallowedperRuleVII
• Cargocontendedallowanceunreasonablymade
• Held:ClaimunderRuleVIIisnotsubjectto
requirementofreasonablenessinRuleA
Ø LeadingtointroductionofRuleParamountincludedinthe1994YAR
The”Alpha”(1991)
3/23/18
10
THELONGCHAMP
Marida Ltd.v.Oswal Steel
The”Bijela”(1994)
THELONGCHAMP
Marida Ltd.v.Oswal Steel• BulkerloadedcargoatProvidence,RhodeIslandforIndia
• VesselgroundedshortlyaftersailingfromProvidence
• Sustainedsubstantialbottomdamage
• PutintoJamestownwherenodrydockavailable
• Vesselcouldhavedischargedcargo,proceededtoNew
York,dry-dockedandpermanentlyrepaired,then
returnedtoreloadcargoandresumevoyage– estimated
GA$535,000
• TemporaryRepairseffectedatJamestown- $282,606
• AdjusterWdisallowedTRviewnoalternativeat
Jamestown– practiceofmanyadjusters
• Ship-ownerreferredcasetoAdjusterMwhoallowedTR
asGAintermsofRule14,YAR1974
Ø CommercialCourtdisallowedongroundthatPRatNew
Yorkwouldnothavebeennecessaryforthesafe
prosecutionofvoyage– TRservedthatpurposes
The”Bijela”(1994)
3/23/18
11
THELONGCHAMP
Pendingappeal,AAAUniformityResolutionsupportedbymarket
Underwriters:
ApplicationofRuleXIV
Thatinpractice,inconsideringthesavinginexpensereferred
tointhesecondparagraphofRuleXIVofYork-AntwerpRules
1974,thedeterminationastowhetherpermanentrepairswould
havebeennecessaryforthesafeprosecutionofthevoyageshall
notbeaffectedbythefactthattemporaryrepairswere
practicable.
Ø CourtofAppealupheldthedecisiontodisallow
Ø HouseofLordsupheldtheShip-owners’claim
Ø Q.The2nd paraofRuleXIVobligesustosupposethat
theTRhadnotbeeneffectedatJamestown.Whatthen
wouldhavehappened?Ø “Itisnotnecessarytoassumethatthevesselcouldnot
havebeenrepairedatJamestowninordertogiveeffect
tothetworules[rulesXandXIV].Itisonlynecessary
toassumethatshewasnotsorepaired,asr.XIV
requires.”
The”Bijela”(1994)
THE“LONGCHAMP”- CASUALTY
THELONGCHAMP
VESSEL
VOYAGE
CARGO
MVLongchamp
TransitingtheGulfofAdenonavoyagefromRafnes,
Norway,toGoSau,Vietnam
2,728.732MetrictonsofVinylVhloride Monomerin
Bulk
Underbillofladingdated6th January2009which
statedthat“GeneralAverage,ifany,shallbesettled
inaccordancewithYorkAntwerpRules1974”.
Eyl,Somalia
3/23/18
12
THECASUALTY
THELONGCHAMP
DATEOF
CASULTY
SUMMERY
RANSOM
29TH January2009
At6:40,sevenheavilyarmedpiratesboardedthe
vesselandcommandedthemastertoaltercourse
towardsthebayofEly,Somalia
31st January2009– Vesselarrivedanddropped
anchor
30th January2009- negotiatorsforpiratesboarded
thevesselanddemandedaransomofUS$6million
Negotiationperiodof51days
22nd March2009– ransomagreedatUS$1.85m
27th March2009– Ransomdelivered
28th March2009– Piratesdisembarked
THELONGCHAMP
NORMALGAALLOWANCES
•CostofsearchingShip
•Ransommoneyitself
•Feesandexpensesofnegotiatingteam
•Associatedlawyerscost
•Costofdeliveringtheransomcash
•Insurance Premiumontheransomcash
•Associatedbankcharges
(Detentionexpensesandlossofhirenotrecoverable)
3/23/18
13
THEADJUSTMENT31August2011
• Totalc.v. US$5,452,278
• Cargo– US$787,186(14.4377%)
• TotalGA. US$3,298,365.49
• Cargopays US$476,209.60
• POA+interest 573,538.26
• Refund US$97,328.66
THELONGCHAMP
THEADJUSTMENT
THELONGCHAMP
i) Mediaresponseservice
ii) Crewwages
iii) High-riskareabonus
iv) Crewmaintenance
v) Bunkers
vi) Telephonerenegotiations
US$20,639.30
75,724.80
70,058.70
3,315.00
11,115.45
751.00
US$181,604.25
Itwasnotedthattheadjustershadallowedingeneralaverage
underRuleFthefollowingexpensesincurredduringthe
negotiationperiod,inviewofthat“anamountofUS$4.15mwas
savedinthecommoninterestofallpropertyownersconcerned,
whichwouldhavebeenrecoverableinGAperRuleAoftheYork-
AntwerpRules1974.”:
3/23/18
14
THEADJUSTMENT
THELONGCHAMP
• CargoInterestsdisagreed
• Cargo’sproportion
US$26,220!
• SoughtopinionofAAAAdvisoryCommittee– (4:1)expensesclaimeddidnotcomewithinRuleF.]
• DisputefounditswaytotheCourt.
THECOMMERCIALCOURTDECISION
THELONGCHAMP
TheCourtfoundthat:
a) Hypothetical alternativecourseofactionmust
meetrequirementthatitwas“reasonably…
incurred”withinmeaningofr.A
b) Expensesii)– v)allowableinGAunderr.Fas
“substitutedexpenses”inlieuofsaving$4.15m
c) Expensesi)andvi)allowableinGAunderr.A
d) PaymentoftheoriginaldemandUS$6m
withoutnegotiationwouldnothavebeen
unreasonablyincurred.
Construction”extra” – ordinaryandnaturalmeaning,whichis
“additional”andnot“extraordinary”
“expense” (inthecontextofbunkers)–
consumptionofbunkersincluded.
“extra”expenses – allthatisrequired:the
substitutedexpenseresultedinadditionalfinancial
outlaywhichwouldnotordinarilyhavebeen
incurred
Commercial
Court
3/23/18
15
THECOURTOFAPPEALDECISION
THELONGCHAMP
Thecargoappealedchallengingtothe
judgmentonexpensesi)– v)andtheCourt
agreedthat:
a) Paymentoftheoriginalransomdemandof
US$6mwithoutnegotiationwouldhave
beenreasonable;
b) Themediaresponsecosts,i)areallowable
ingeneralaverageunderRuleA;
c) Consumptionofbunkersistreatedasan
expenseforthepurposeofRuleF;
BUT,theCourtheldthat
d) Expensesii)– v)notallowableunderRuleF– not“analternativecourseofaction”,therebeingonlyoneroadopentotheship-owners,namelynegotiationandthatroadledtowhereverthenegotiationended.
CourtofAppeal
Commercial
Court
SUPREMECOURTDECISION
THELONGCHAMP
TheownersappealedtotheSupremeCourt
submittingthatthenegotiationperiod
expenses,ii)– v)amountingto
US$160,213.95,fellwithintheexpression
“expenseincurred”bythemwithinRuleF
andthoseexpenseswereincurred“inplace
ofanotherexpense”,i.e.thesavingof
US$4.15mresultingfromthenegotiations.
Sincethenegotiationperiodexpenseswere
lessthanthe“generalaverageexpense
avoided”,theywereaccordinglyallowablein
generalaverageunderRuleF.
TheSupremeCourt(byamajorityof4to1)reversedtheCourtofAppealdecision,allowingthenegotiationperiodexpenses,ii)– v),ingeneralaverageunderRuleF
CourtofAppeal
Commercial
Court
SupremeCourt
3/23/18
16
THELONGCHAMP
CourtofAppeal
Commercial
Court
SupremeCourt
a) thelanguageofRuleFdidnotrequirethat
theexpenseswereincurredfollowingan
alternativecourse;incurringthenegotiation
periodexpenseswasanalternativetopaying
ahigherransom;“theformerinvolved
incurringvessel-operatingexpenses whereasthelatterinvolvedpayingaransom”
b) itwasnotnecessarytoconsiderwhetherthe
initialransomdemandwasreasonableunder
RuleA;thewordsinRuleF“anotherexpense
whichwouldhavebeenallowableasgeneral
average”wereareferencetoanexpenseofa
nature/typewhichwouldhavebeen
allowable(ratherthanits’quantum)under
RuleA,underwhicharansomwouldbe
allowableingeneralaverage.
SUPREMECOURTDECISION
THELONGCHAMP
CourtofAppeal
Commercial
Court
SupremeCourt
c)RuleConlyappliestolossconsequential
onaGAactdefinedbyRuleA.Itdoesnot
applytoexpensescoveredbyRuleF,which
isconcernedwithsumsexpendedin
avoidingexpenseotherwiseallowableas
generalaverage.
d) TheCourtsawnoreasonforrestrictively
interpretingtheword“extra”soasto
requireanexpensetobeifanaturewhich
wouldnotnormallyhavebeenincurredin
responsetotheperilthreateningthe
adventure.TheCourtwasoftheopinion
thatthenaturalcontextualmeaningof
“extraexpense”was“simplyanexpense
whichwouldnototherwisehavebeen
incurred(butforthesavingofthe“other
expense”)”.
SUPREMECOURTDECISION
3/23/18
17
THELONGCHAMP
• YARbeinganinternationalruleshouldbeinterpretedbyits
wordinginsteadofbypractice.
• “GiventhattheRulesrepresentaninternationalarrangement,it
isparticularlyinappropriateto adoptanapproachtotheirinterpretationwhichinvolvedreadinginanywordsorqualification.….asamatterofordinarylanguage,RuleFapplies
tothenegotiationperiodexpenses...Toimplysomequalification
suchastherequirementthatthoseexpensesmusthavebeen
incurredsoastoachievean“alternativecourseofaction”
appearstometobeverydangerous.”
• TheCourtfavouredinterpretationofRuleF:“wheneveran
expenseisincurredtoavoidasumofatypewhichwouldbe
allowable,thatexpensewouldbeallowable,butonlytothe
extentthatitdoesnotexceedthesumavoided.”
(Accordingly,thenegotiationperiodexpensesinthe
amountofUS$160,213.95fellunderRuleFastheywere
incurredtoavoidpayingUS$6m,resultinginasavingof
US$4.15m.)
Thedecision- Construction
THELONGCHAMP
Thedecision- Construction
• “Anyextraexpense” - Anyadditionalexpense“whichsimplywouldnototherwisehavebeenincurredbutfor
thesavingofthe“otherexpense””.
• RuleCofYork-AntwerpRulesexclusionshasno
applicationtoRuleF– “…itdoesnotfollowthat
suchindirectliabilitiesshouldbeirrecoverableif
theyareexpendedinordertomitigatewhat
wouldotherwisebealargerGAclaim”.
• “inplaceofanotherexpense” – “mustbeassessed
objectively… itisclear… thatnegotiationswere…
needediftheransomwastobereduced,thatsuch
negotiationstook… time,andthatthepassageoftime
resultedinthenegotiationperiodexpenses… being
incurred.”Asaresultofthosenegotiationsresultingin
theransomreduced,suchexpenseswereincurredinplaceof thealternativeofpayingtheextra.
3/23/18
18
THELONGCHAMP
Thedecision- ApproachSuggestedquestionstobeasked(assetbyAAA
AdvisoryCommittee):
1. Istheexpenseavoidedofanature(notquantum)thatwouldhavebeenallowable?
2. HasthesubstitutedexpensesbeenincurredtoavoidorminimizeaGAexpenseofatypethatwouldbeallowable?
(MitigationoflossisofferedastheprincipleunderlyingRuleF.)
3. Doesthesubstitutedexpenseincurredexceedthesumavoided?
THELONGCHAMP
EffectofRuleParamount- Reasonableness
TheRulerequiresthesubstitutedexpenseto
havebeenreasonablyincurred;nosuch
requirementofreasonablenessappliestothe
hypotheticalalternativecourse.
Speaker’sviewapparentlysharedby
formerEditorofLowndes&Rudolf– 12th Edition
3/23/18
19
THELONGCHAMP
AAAADVISORYCOMMITTEE(ReferenceisrequestedtotheReportdated25th January2018)
• “Longchamp”decisiondepartsfrom• viewsofmainYARstakeholders– IUMIBIMCO/ICS
• Generalinternationalunderstanding
• Future(English,alsoHongKong)GAadjustments• Negotiatingransom
• Negotiatingawardwith(cash)salvors
• Alsoimpactoffollowinginwiderangeofcases
involvingRuleF:
• Discardingofthe“reasonableness”testin
favour ofrequiringonlythatthehypothetical
alternativeisof“anature”thatmightbe
allowable
• Broadeningunderstandingofwhatconstitutes
an“extraexpense”inRuleFtoincludeany
expenseincluding“indirectliabilities”suchas
demurragethathasmitigatedaGAexpense
• RuleChasnoapplicationtoRuleF
• Lookingforwardtocommentsfromallquarters
THELONGCHAMP
Speaker’snotes• EffectofRuleParamount- Reasonableness
TheRulerequiresthesubstitutedexpensetohavebeen
reasonablyincurred;nosuchrequirementof
reasonablenessappliestothehypotheticalalternative
course.
ApparentlysharedbyformerEditorof
Lowndes&Rudolf– 12th Edition
• EquityEquityistheaimofGA;itishoweverthemarketwhich
remainsbeingtheultimatedecider.
• RoleofAverageAdjustersAAA:ItisnotfortheAverageAdjusterstodeterminewhat
shouldcomewithinGA,whichisamattersolelyforthe
stakeholdersthemselves.Theroleofadjustersisto
explaintheimplicationsofanydevelopmentsinthelaw
asbesttheycan,andthenawaittheresponseofthe
marketstheyserve.
3/23/18
20
THELONGCHAMP
THELONGCHAMP
3/23/18
21
THELONGCHAMP
RaymondWongASIAMARITIMEADJUSTING(HONGKONG)OfficeB,9/F.,SaiWanHoPlaza,
68Shau KeiWanRoad,HongKong
T. +85235905653/39969876
SUBSTITUTED EXPENSES IN GENERAL AVERAGEper York-Antwerp Rules
20th March 2018
- Workshop