"Front Ace", Owners of the Ship v "Vicky 1", Owners of the Ship

"Front Ace", Owners of the Ship v "Vicky 1", Owners of the Ship

The loss of the Chevron fixture was caused by the collision and not by any extraneous event or failure to mitigate; the claimants acted reasonably throughout. The time equalisation method was the appropriate approach to quantum on the facts, and there was no basis for discounting damages for loss of a chance as the vessel would have been profitably employed during the relevant period.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/cross Appellant: The Owners of the Ship 'Front Ace'; Defendant/appellant: The Owners of the Ship 'Vicky 1'
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Damages Assessment / Appeal From Admiralty Registrar to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Claimants' appeal allowed in part; Defendants' appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Mitigation of Loss, Damages Assessment, Loss of Profits, Loss of a Chance, Restitutio in Integrum
Admiralty Maritime Law Tort Causation Mitigation of Loss Damages Assessment Loss of Profits Loss of a Chance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Owners of the Ship 'Front Ace'

Claimant/respondent/cross Appellant

The Owners of the Ship 'Vicky 1'

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Damages Assessment / Appeal From Admiralty Registrar to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss of the Chevron fixture was caused by the collision or by an intervening event
  2. 2 Whether the claimants failed to mitigate their loss
  3. 3 What is the correct methodology for calculating loss of profit in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The loss of the Chevron fixture was caused by the collision and not by any extraneous event or failure to mitigate; the claimants acted reasonably throughout. The time equalisation method was the appropriate approach to quantum on the facts, and there was no basis for discounting damages for loss of a chance as the vessel would have been profitably employed during the relevant period.

Court Disposition

Claimants' appeal allowed in part; Defendants' appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Registrar's order varied to increase damages for loss of profits from US$1,888,396.30 to US$2,360,495.49 with a corresponding increase in agency fees at 1%