Page 1

Annual Report 2018

The Association of

Average Adjusters

Annual Report 2018














Annual Report 2018

CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION Being the first overseas based Chair of the Association has had its challenges but has also been very rewarding. During my travels over the past year, I have been very encouraged by the high regard with which the Association holds within international shipping and insurance industry. This has been achieved mostly by the hard work of our members and I am very grateful to each and every one of them. The past year has been busy with the Advisory and Dispute Resolution Panel presenting a paper on the potentially far reaching consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision on “Longchamp” regarding Rule F of the York/Antwerp Rules. The Association delivered two addresses to the IUA in London and the exams continued to attract a significant number of candidates from all parts of the world whether for the Associate level papers or the Fellowship modules. With regard to the exams, we also saw the launch of the new A3 module dealing with Upstream and Offshore Energy Insurance with our first successful candidate for this exam. The website has continued to evolve and the Association has also launched a LinkedIn page, keeping in touch with our extensive and international membership. Looking forward, there are no changes to the management of the Association this year and I was elected to stay on as the Chair for a further year. I am grateful to my Vice-Chair, Burkhard Fischer, the Committee of Management and our Secretary, Ann Waite for their continued, diligent work. As I announced at the Annual General Meeting, the Association is looking to go through some constitutional changes this year which, whilst tidying up a number of administrative areas, should have little or no impact on our members. As we approach our 150th year, I am keen that the Association should continue to evolve to serve its membership as best we can and would encourage those with ideas to not be shy about making their thoughts known either to myself or others on the Committee of Management. In response to some feedback we have received from the Associates, for instance, we hope to launch a number of webinars during the year dealing with various topics relevant to the exam modules. I am very grateful to Keith Martin in particular in this regard for taking this forward. As this report goes to press, the northern hemisphere will be contemplating the joys of summer whilst I sit in the depths of winter, battling the snow in New Zealand. This epitomises the international nature or our Association which is something we should all cherish. Willum Richards

Officers of the Association 2017/18 Chairman - Willum Richards Hon Treasurer - Tristan Miller

Vice-Chairman - Burkhard Fischer

Convener of the Examining Committee - David Pannell

Convenor of the Advisory and Disputes Resolution Panel – David Clancey Secretary - Ann Waite

Administrator - Sue Green


Tel: (+44) 191 261 9456

Secretariat: c/o Ms Vickie Brennan, Charles Taylor Insurance Services Limited, Lloyds Chambers, 1 Portsoken Street, London E1 8BT 3

Annual Report 2018


ASSOCIATION OF AVERAGE ADJUSTERS held at: The Offices of Clyde & Co. The St. Botolph Building, London EC3A 7NJ on Thursday, 10th May, 2018 In the Chair: Mr. Willum Richards THE SECRETARY (Ann Waite): Good morning, everybody. For those of you who do not know me, I am Ann Waite, the Secretary of the Association. Welcome to you all. Welcome to the Annual General Meeting. Let me go through a bit of housekeeping. Phones. If you would turn them on to silent, that would be appreciated. There is no fire alarm expected this morning, so if it does go off, it is a real alarm and follow the green signs to the exits. Other than that I am going to hand over to Willum Richards, our Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN (Willum Richards): Good morning everybody and welcome to the 149th Annual General Meeting of the Association of Average Adjusters. Personally, I would like to express my gratitude to Clyde & Co., and particularly to Tim Taylor, who I do not think is here today, for making these fabulous facilities available to us once again. My thanks to Clyde & Co. do not end there. Following the meeting, we are grateful to their team in advance for assisting us with a light lunch which will follow. In previous years on the day before the Annual General Meeting we have hosted a lunch for the Associates. It has been pointed out that for Associates attending from overseas, of which there are a gratifying number, the additional day can be hard to justify. We hope that the lunch will allow our Associates, Subscribers and our guests a little time to mingle prior to the Dinner this evening, at which I am very much looking forward to seeing all of you. We have in our midst some distinguished guests from other organisations and affiliated organisations who I would like to acknowledge and welcome on behalf of the Association of Average Adjusters: • • • • • •

Tony Brain – Association of Average Adjusters of US & Canada Joern Groninger – Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs (AMD) Stefano Cavallo – Italian Association of Average Adjusters Vibeke Kofoed – Nordic Average Adjusters Association Frank Nolan – US Maritime Law Association Bjorn Slaatten – Norwegian Government appointed adjuster

We now turn our attention to the more formal aspects of the meeting. 1. CONFIRMATION OF THE DECISIONS OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING HELD ON 11TH MAY 2017 THE CHAIRMAN: Item 1 is: Confirmation of the Decisions of the Annual General Meeting held on 11th May of last year. Instead of calling on the Secretary to read the meeting transcript embodied within the 5

Annual Report 2018

Annual Report, I move that, in accordance with custom, the transcript of the AGM, as embodied in the Annual Report of the last meeting, having been examined, agreed and certified by the Committee of Management, the same shall now be confirmed. THE SECRETARY: Do we have any objections to that? (No response) If not, could I have a proposer (Paul Rowland) and a seconder (Keith Jones). Could I ask the Fellows present, please, to vote all in favour? Anyone against? That is carried. THE CHAIRMAN: I have to confess that the thought had crossed my mind that if I asked the Secretary to read the whole transcript of last year’s meeting, it would have taken quite some time and we could all moved forward to lunch without too much further input from me. 2. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, WILLUM RICHARDS, ON THE PAST YEAR OF THE ASSOCIATION THE CHAIRMAN: Item 2 on the agenda, however, is the report from myself. The Association continues to prosper with a total number of members of all types maintained at around 550, representing, roughly, 48 countries. As the Chair of the Association, I get to see the new applications as they come through, and it is amazing and heartening to see the wide variety of professionals who want to be a member of this Association, either as subscribers or as an avenue to learning and qualification. With regard to the election of officers, I have to confess that the Association has shown little this year by way of creativity. At the Annual Private Meeting of Fellows yesterday, I was elected to serve as the Chair of the Association for a further year. Similarly, Mr Burkhard Fischer was elected to serve a third term as our ViceChair. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Burkhard for his support and guidance during the course of this year and ask him to stand so that we can offer him congratulations on his re-election and thank him for the fine work he has done so far. (Applause) The other officers of the Association remain Tristan Miller as Treasurer, David Clancey as the Convenor of the Advisory and Dispute Resolution Panel and David Pannell as the Convenor of the Examining Committee. For those who may not be aware, this meeting marks 50 years of David Pannell being a qualified member of the Association, a fabulous achievement, and his input and hard work continues to be appreciated. Now to the sad news. During the last year we had the news of the deaths of four of our Fellows. In the middle of last year, we lost Charles Clark, who was a partner with Burdon & Clark, having qualified in 1957. John Palmer passed away earlier this year. Paul Rowland remarked at the time “John was a partner of E.R. Lindley where he spent all of his adjusting career. He qualified in 1968 and practised until the mid-1990s. He served on various Association committees. John was highly respected by his colleagues and there are a number of active Fellows who would have known him well, particularly those who spent part of their adjusting careers with E.R. Lindley. He was a very good adjuster and I certainly benefited greatly from working with him for 20 years.” We also had the passing of the Honorary Fellow Professor Francesco Berlingieri. The internationally respected Italian commercial lawyer was President of CMI from 1976 to 1991 as well as an honorary member of a number of institutions, including the BMLA and the USMLA. He worked on a number of international shipping agreements using his tact and diplomacy and was elected as an Honorary Fellow of this Association in 1991. Most recently came the sad news with regard to Bernard Dann. He was elected as a Member in 1957 and was the partner responsible for the Liverpool office of Richards Hogg until his retirement in 1985. 6

Annual Report 2018

He was Chairman of the Association in 1976 and his address on the topic of The Reasonable Cost of Repairs reflected his emphasis on core principles when dealing with difficult and complex claims for some of the leading shipping companies of the day. He was a strong supporter of the local Liberal Party and the church, and was for many years a magistrate becoming Chairman of the Wirral Branch. His reputation was such that the mere threat of potentially coming before Mr Dann as a magistrate kept a certain young Willum Richards largely out of too much trouble during two years working in the Liverpool office of Richards Hogg in the late 1980s. (Chuckling) I move now to the examinations. The exams remain popular, with the Associate level exams being held in October of last year and March of this year. In all, some 105 exams were undertaken over 16 locations around the world. In October of last year, levels A1 and A2 were set and of the 33 exams taken, there were 24 passes, eight of those being with distinction. In March of this year, again with A1 and A2, there were a 33 candidates who achieved 24 passes with six distinctions. We also had the first two candidates to try our new A3 module of Upsteam and Offshore Claims with one managing to satisfy the examiners. The outcome of the October and March exams resulted in a further 17 new Associates as shown. I would like to offer my congratulations to all of our new Associates and ask any of them who are here today, please, to stand so that they may receive the applause and congratulations for their efforts from the Association. (Applause) • Evangelia Chakos (TMS Bulkers, Athens) • Amy Chan Tin Ting (Tai Chong Cheang SS Co. Hong Kong) • Boran Cho (Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Ins Co, Tokyo) • Christian Freuling (Albatross Adjusters, Limassol) • Joey Sangsu Jeong (Samsung Fire & Marine Ins Co, Seoul) • Nicole Leung Sze Long (Gard HK Ltd, Hong Kong) • Putri Letitiya (Radita Hutama Internusa, Jakarta) • Yonghwhan Lim (HIS, Seoul) • Omprakash Marayil (Charles Taylor Adjusting, Dubai) • Susannah Marsden (Thomas Miller/TT Club, London) • Anthony Mok Kei Chi (Gard (HK) Ltd, Hong Kong) • Carrie Radford (Ince & Co LLP, London) • Jorgen Russwurm (Skuld Marine Agency AS, Oslo) • Lucy Smith (Atrium Underwriting Group, London) • Vineet Venugopalan (Qatar Insce Co, Dubai) • Eleni Elvira Vranaki (Capital Ship Management, Athens) • Satoru Yamashita (Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Ins Co, Tokyo) March also saw the sitting of the first of the three Fellowship modules. For Module F1, General Average, Salvage and Carriage of Goods by Sea, 10 candidates sat the exam of whom two satisfied the examiners. For Module F2, Hull Claims including Loss of Hire, two out of the nine candidates passed. For Module F3, Collision ancillary insurances and cargo claims, five candidates sat the exam with one successfully navigating the paper. Senior Associateship is awarded to those who manage to pass Module F1 and one of the other Fellowship modules. As a result of the March exams, we had three new Senior Associates: • Muthu Jagannath (Nau Pte Ltd, Singapore) • Rui Hao (Charles Taylor, Shanghai) • Georgios Margaritopoulos (RHL, Piraeus)


Annual Report 2018

I understand that of these, George is with us today and I would like to invite him up to receive his pin and certificate. (Presentation made amidst applause) I will be asking other Fellows to present the certificates to Rui and Mertu in due course. Hopefully, we can see a record of those presentations on Linked-In. More of that later. The F4 Practical paper is sat in January of each year in view of the length of time and the effort required in the marking and to ensure that the results are ready in time. This exam, as any of the newer Fellows will tell you, is not for the faint hearted. It requires a high level of practical and technical expertise. This year was no exception, and of the eight candidates spread over all locations, one managed to satisfy the examiners. The particular candidate still has another module to negotiate on his way to Fellowship, and we hope to be seeing him qualifying very soon. The Association presents an annual award to the outstanding young candidate of the year. The prize is a sponsorship to the International Marine Claims Conference in Dublin later this year, and this year the award goes to Nicole Leung of Gard, Hong Kong for her two distinctions on papers A1 and A2. Congratulations to Nicole. I would once again like to thank David Pannell and his team for their dedication in administering the exams, and particularly Keith Martin who took responsibility for the setting of a number of the papers and some other administrative tasks. I would also like to thank our two independent moderators, Peter Mellett, the Managing Director of Bankserve for the traditional modules and Paul Stratton, Senior Claims Adjuster at Syndicate 457, Munich Re Syndicate, for the A3 Offshore Energy module. Their scrutiny in independently ensuring that we maintain our standards and relevance is vital, and I thank them both. Before leaving the subject of examinations, I ought to mention that following on from our previous Chair, Keith Martin’s discussions with the US and Canadian Association a year ago, the subject of co-operating to add a cargo-related module to the Associate level exams was mooted. However, having discussed it at length with the Committee of Management, we have advised them that we will not be going down this route at this time. With the development of other examinations in the London market, it was felt that we had insufficient to offer at this stage, whilst those examinations and syllabuses bed down. Once the dust has settled, if there is still a gap in the qualification market that we feel we can assist with, then we may well re-visit the issue. During the course of the year I had the chance to travel to a number of overseas events. Being from New Zealand almost everything is, by definition, overseas. None the less, I greatly enjoyed attending the General Assembly of the Association of Mondiale De Dispacheurs in Alexandria outside of Washington DC, and the Annual General Meeting of the US and Canadian Association of Average Adjusters in New York. I would, personally, like to take the opportunity to thank Jonathan Spencer from AMD and Brian Swales of the US and Canadian Association for their hospitality. I was also lucky enough to attend the exceptional International Marine Claims Conference in Dublin for the first time, and I would like to thank Ann Waite and Charlotte Warr, again, for their hospitality. For those who have not had a chance to attend, it is an excellent forum for marine claims issues. It was good to see two of our newer Fellows, Heather Robinson and Andrew Slade, delivering a workshop demystifying a general average and running-down clause adjustment. One of the consequences of living on the other side of the world is that I have been unable to accept the kind invitations to attend a number of dinner and other functions hosted by our affiliated organisations. I am happy to report, however, that various members of the Committee of Management have put their bodies on the line and been available to ably represent the Association. Keith Martin attended the BMLA dinner in November of last year and the UK Chamber of Shipping Dinner in February. Chris Tang attended on behalf of the Association at a reception hosted by the International Salvage Union in Singapore. Our Vice Chair, Burkhard Fischer, and our Treasurer, Tristan Miller, both attended the ISU annual dinner last month here in London. We value the affiliations we have with these organisations and the chance to connect, which these events provide. 8

Annual Report 2018

Our Association also conducted, in conjunction with the International Underwriters’ Associations, two briefings here in London. In September, I gave an address on the Unreasonable Cost of Repairs, and more recently Stelios gave what I understand to have been an excellent talk on the tricky and intricate subject of “Abortive Repairs - is it a new casualty on the unfinished business of an old one?” I should also report that the Association has applied to become a consultative member of CMI, and we are hopeful that our application will be approved at their meeting in London later this year. As noted last year, the Association continues to modernise at what might be termed “a steady pace”. The website is continually being tinkered with and this year the Advisory Panel’s paper on “The Longchamp” gave an opportunity to review and upgrade that section of the site to hold the current opinions and an index of those opinions. At the same time, earlier in the year we managed to locate and upload all of the annual reports and addresses from the Chairs back to 1976. Amy O’Neill is to be thanked for moving the Association cautiously into the social media space with the advent of our LinkedIn page. I would encourage all members who are on LinkedIn but not currently connected to do so in order to keep up to date with the Association’s announcements. In addition, Amy took responsibility with the Committee of Management for the activities of the Associates. Whilst arranging away days and other social events has proved difficult, following some consultation, a number of subscribers and Associates expressed a desire for more learning opportunities. Consequently, in the next year, with the assistance of Norton Rose, we hope to be able to offer some of those studying for the Associate level exams around the world at least one webinar to assist with their understanding of these topics. I am grateful to Keith Martin in advance for taking this on. Depending on the feedback from such an event, further webinars may be arranged, and this will provide a useful means of connecting with our membership, which, as mentioned, is widely dispersed. Whilst we are a relatively small organisation, we are not immune from the impact of European Union legislation, and, in particular, the General Data Protection Regulation. In addition to allowing members to know what data we maintain about them, this also requires us to obtain permission to use that data. In particular, the names and contact details of all our members are published on our website and limited details in our Annual Report. The Annual Report, in particular, provides an interesting historical record of the members of the Association and their status through the ages. As somebody who was mistakenly missed out of the report for a number of years, I can attest to the fact that not appearing is a great pity. As we work through these requirements to comply with the regulations, I would beg your patience and co-operation at the appropriate time in providing the requisite permissions. With regard to the Advisory and Dispute Resolution Panel, in addition to the excellent paper on the “Longchamp” decision, there have been three referrals during the course of the year. The Panel remains a useful resource to the marine insurance community in providing a high level of expertise at a relatively modest cost to what are often very complex issues. Depending on the wishes of the participants, the decisions can remain confidential, which is important to many. I am grateful to the members of the Panel for their work during the year. For anyone who has not had a chance to read the opinion of the “Longchamp”, it is highly recommended. With regard to constitutional reform, at the Private Fellows Meeting yesterday we decided to proceed with constitution reform of the Association from its current structure to a company limited by guarantee. In all practical aspects, this will make little or no difference to the vast majority of our membership, but I thought people ought to be aware of the decision. There will be no change in the name of the organisation or, really, anything else, but I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who have been involved, particularly Keith Martin and Ann Waite for the work which has been involved so far. My personal thanks to all contributions from the members of the Committee of Management. Given the time differences between here and New Zealand, they have occasionally fielded calls rather late in the evening, and I am very grateful for their patience in this regard. Being the Chair of this Association from a distance has had its challenges, not least in trying to run the Committee of Management meetings by teleconference where the 9

Annual Report 2018

high-tech camera in the middle of the table switches the lens through which I see people depending on who is talking — it is an absolutely fabulous piece of machinery — although it occasionally gets confused by the clinking of tea cups and the crunching of particularly hard biscuits, which makes things a little disconcerting. (Chuckling) Whilst participating in meetings from distance is not ideal, I think it is important that the Committee continues to have representation from outside of Europe in order to maintain its relevance to the significant section of the membership that does not live in this part of the world. Ann Waite, as always, has been fabulous as Secretary and amazingly patient. At the Private Fellows’ meeting yesterday we elected a new Honorary Fellow from within our ranks. Honorary Fellowship is offered to those people whom the Association wishes to recognise for their contribution to the aims of the Association or to the furtherance of marine insurance and claims understanding and expertise. We currently have 19 honorary members. They include a number of members of the Bar and legal profession, whose work has and continues to frame much of what we do. There are also a number of market figures who have assisted and supported the Association. There were only three Honorary Fellows who had previously been Fellows of the Association or its prior equivalent in their own right, and it is to their number that I have the great pleasure of announcing the addition of Richard Cornah. Richard graduated from Cambridge University in 1975 and joined the energy risk division of Richards Hogg in London. He moved to manage their Kuwait office between 1979 and 1982 before qualifying in 1984 and moving to Liverpool as the managing partner. One of his notable achievements was putting up with me for a few years. He has been on various Association committees over time and remains on the Advisory and Disputes Panel, where I know his contributions are always well thought out and valued. He was also heavily involved in the restructuring of the Association’s exams to their successful modular format of today. He was Chairman of the Association in 2008 and 2009, delivering notable addresses on pollution and the incidents of loss. He is a co-author of the Association’s Introduction to Hull Claims as well as several similar publications on hull claims and general average. He is a co-editor of Lowndes & Rudolph, which is no small task in the current environment. In 2017, on the recommendation of the BMLA, he was recognised for his work on the York-Antwerp Rules by being made a titular member of CMI. Last but not least, he has been and remains the Association’s representative on the LOF Working Party and its successor, the Lloyd’s Salvage Group, a role he has excelled at since 1994. Many congratulations to Richard, and the Association looks forward to your continued contribution for some time to come. Richard, congratulations. (Applause)


Annual Report 2018

3. ADDRESS BY THE CHAIRMAN “Fishing — Shades of Grey” We now turn to the subject of my Address today: “Fishing — Shades of Grey”. In somewhat the same vein as Paul Rowland’s address to this Association entitled “Basic Instinct”, for those of you who may be hoping for a recitation of some kinky goings on during the lonely nights on a longliner in the Southern Oceans involving nets and ropes, I am sorry to disappoint. When my father gave his address to this Association in 1983 on his slightly controversial views on the future of Average Adjusting, the then secretary, Robert Clancey, commented that if he did not like or disagreed with what my father said, he would seek to contain any heresy by simply forgetting to ask the traditional question following the address as to whether the Chairman would allow his remarks to be published. I feel a similar level of concern. During my research for this address, I have become aware that not all of my fellow adjusters will necessarily agree with what I am about to say. I would love to believe that my elegant rhetoric and undeniable logic will win them over. We will have to see. However, it is a worthy reminder that Average Adjusters are not infallible – either individually or collectively. As Richard Lowndes noted in the very first address given to the Association in 1873 with regard to the almost “oracle” status which Average Adjusters enjoyed in the early years of the profession: “Emancipated from the necessity of giving reasons, they were tempted to emancipate themselves from the necessity of forming reasons.” Items were adjusted according to custom and if challenged as to whether such a practice was legal Lowndes suggested that an adjuster would likely respond with: “But, my dear sir, the custom is the law; custom makes law…”. Even in Lowndes’ day, however, that was no longer good enough and the explosion of marine insurance litigation in the late 19th century served to severely narrow the domain of custom (whether in the adjustment of claims or other fields). We have seen in the last year another example where the majority of average adjusters’ practice would have been to adjust certain General Average expenses under Rule F of the York-Antwerp Rules in a certain way whilst the Supreme Court, in the “Longchamp” decision, have said that we have had this wrong for some time. The fact that the major stakeholders in General Average (principally being the bodies representing the respective ship and cargo interests) did not deem it necessary to make changes to Rule F when they had the chance prior to the 2016 York/Antwerp Rules, only emphasises how naively sure the parties were of their ground. Whilst one has to respect the law, one can only harbour a little concern when one hears (in relation to another recent case involving marine insurance) that the judge was influenced by the fact that one party neglected to provide a sensible defence to a minor point in that case (but one which may have a much wider application as a precedent in others) and the dubious quality of one of the expert witnesses. Whilst all cases are decided on their particular facts and a decision may not have great importance to that particular litigation, the precedents which are set have to be observed elsewhere. The majority of the development of marine insurance policy wordings and law as well as Rules such as the York/Antwerp Rules, the Hague/Visby Rules or the Rotterdam Rules are concerned with what may be termed as “proper shipping”. This involves generally larger, commercial vessels undertaking a voyage from A to B with third party cargo or passengers on board. 11

Annual Report 2018

If, after several hundred years, we are still making mistakes and struggling to understand the intricacies of maritime law for ‘proper shipping’, imagine the situation when one ventures off and starts to look at some of the darker backwaters of the marine insurance world where the light of legal precedent and consideration rarely, if ever, penetrate. As many of you will be aware by now, I live and work principally in the Australian and New Zealand markets. Due to the way in which the shipping industry has developed over the last few decades, Australia and New Zealand no longer enjoy substantial (or even insubstantial) blue water shipping fleets. The issues which many in this room come across involving large bulk carriers, tankers or container vessels or large multi-bill of lading general averages are not something which we see too often down in the colonies. New Zealand’s fleet, for instance, is largely made up of tourist and fishing vessels. It is the fishing vessels upon which I would like to concentrate today as they throw up a number of questions and adjusting issues which have a wider application to other areas of shipping. Trying to fit some of the Rules and policy wordings from “proper shipping” into the fishing trade can be challenging and leave an average adjuster wondering whether some of the law is really intended to produce the often bizarre outcomes which result. We will look at a few issues specific to the current Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses, such as the wages and maintenance clause and ask who are the crew? Fishing vessels undertake voyages from a port to nowhere in particular (certainly not another port or place in legal terms) and return to the port from whence they came. Many expensive offshore supply vessels have a similar voyage profile and this produces some interesting issues when one starts to consider general average. When thinking about fishing vessels, they are a huge class of vessel ranging from the small, inshore fishing vessels with a crew of two or three, through to the substantial ocean-going factory vessels with a ship’s complement of over 40 and values in excess of US$50 million. In 2015 the UN statistics indicate the world fishing fleet was around 4.5 million vessels. This compares currently to around 17,000 general cargo ships, 11,000 bulk carriers, 13,000 oil or chemical tankers and a little over 5,000 container vessels. Before you all rush off to amend your current marketing plans based on this startling piece of information, I ought, perhaps, to clarify that of the 4.5 million fishing vessels, around 1.7 million are not powered and are not much more than rowing boats and those over 100 gross tonnes only make up around 1%, but that is still about 40,000 vessels — about the same number as there are “proper” vessels. That said, the fishing fleet is not an insignificant market segment. The Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses, under which many commercial fishing vessels are insured, came into existence in 1987. They owe their parentage to a blend of the more common Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) and the British Trawler All Risks Clauses which most fishing vessels (certainly in the UK) had traditionally used. Whilst a large part of the clauses therefore have the same or very similar wording to the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) there are a number of adaptations for the fishing industry. It is in many of these adaptations that some of the problems with the adjustment of claims are to be found. Some are straightforward such as the substitution of “catch” for “cargo” in various places. “Catch”, as the name suggests, is the term used to describe the fish that have been caught and are on board the fishing vessel. Once caught, they essentially become cargo as they have a value to those interested in their successful delivery back to shore. One issue can arise with valuing catch especially on factory vessels. The “catch” will include whole fish which have just come aboard a ship to frozen, processed and packaged fish fillets and other products plus everything at every stage of production in between. Thus the total value of the catch at the time of a casualty out at sea may be significantly different to the value of the catch discharged at a port of refuge once it has all been processed. Just one of the issues which can play with the mind of an average adjuster when looking at fishing vessel claims. 12

Annual Report 2018

WAGES AND MAINTENANCE One of the significant differences which the Fishing Vessel Clauses have to their more common commercial stable mates is their Clause 9 about wages and maintenance. This states: “The Underwriters to pay the cost of wages and maintenance of members of the crew necessarily retained whilst the Vessel is undergoing repairs for which the Underwriters are liable under this insurance.” This was one of the clauses imported from the old British Trawler All Risks Clauses and maintained as a concession into the fishing fleet. The clause is very different from the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) Clause 16 — Wages and Maintenance which essentially says that no claim can be made for wages and maintenance of the master, officers and crew (other than in General Average) except for during necessary removal passages for repairs and sea trials following casualty repairs. This reflects the position under English law established in Robertson v Ewer in 1786 that the wages and maintenance were a consequential loss and “not part of the thing insured”. Clause 16 has often led to some heated discussions with shipowners when the crew undertake repairs which would otherwise have been undertaken by shore labour at a higher cost. Whilst special payments to the crew or specific overtime working on the repairs are generally accepted as exceptional payments for which insurers are liable, the issue is when the crew undertake more mundane repair work. Writing in Lloyd’s List in 1986, the then Principal Adjuster of Hull Claims at Lloyd’s, Mr Len Watson, suggested that he may look upon claims for crew wages in such cases with sympathy on a “without prejudice basis” if there was a clear saving to insurers. This would be on the basis of the cost being a quasi-substituted expense for the shore-based labour which would otherwise do the work. Quite apart from the difficulties modern insurers (certainly company insurers) have with making “ex-gratia” or “without prejudice” payments in the current compliance-orientated environment, I would suggest that some exceptional circumstances would be required to make an allowance in such cases. Where repairs can be done competently by the crew, the action of a prudent, uninsured shipowner would, surely, be to have the ship’s deck staff or engineers undertake the repairs and it would not, therefore, be “reasonable” to have the work done more expensively by shore labour. As such the crew’s wages could not be claimable as a substituted expense and should simply be excluded by Clause 16. The rationale for the allowance of the crew’s wages during repairs under the British Trawler Clauses (and now the Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses) was to ensure that the fish boat owners could retain quality crew during necessary repairs to the vessel. Without the clause and given the generally precarious nature of the liquidity of such operations, it was likely that the unpaid crew would drift away and be taken on board by other vessels. Once the repairs were complete, the fish-boat owner would be faced with trying to re-crew the vessel from whomever was left. Having a crew who were unfamiliar with the vessel would not be in his interests or necessarily those of the insurers. For this reason the expression “necessarily retained” in the clause has generally been given a very generous interpretation and potentially includes the whole crew as being “necessarily retained” for the on-going fishing operations of the vessel rather than limiting the allowance to those crew “necessarily retained” on the vessel during the course of the repairs to assist with or facilitate those repairs. Whilst the Fishing Vessel Clauses’ Wages and Maintenance clause is unusual in terms of the standard Institute Clauses, it is becoming increasingly common for vessels involved in the offshore industry to have a manuscript wages and maintenance clause which extends the standard Institute Time Clause covers with similar provisions. With the wages on some of these vessels approaching US$ 100,000 a week, you can easily see how the wages element can start to dominate a claim for a relatively inexpensive repair if the required parts are not immediately available. I therefore consider that this is an area worthy of a closer review. 13

Annual Report 2018

When looking to talk about the wages and maintenance of the crew, whether for fishing vessels or any other type of vessel, it is important to have some agreement as to what we mean by the terms “Crew, Wages, and Maintenance”. So — who are the “crew”? Should we consider everyone who works on a vessel which we might call the ship’s complement or some smaller subset and if so who? Much of maritime legislation does not use the term “crew” when referring to personnel aboard a vessel, preferring the term “seaman”. I would suggest that the terms, in the context of this discussion, are synonymous. This is where we start to enter the grey world of the fishing vessel claim. Fishing vessels may have a complement of only one or two or they may have a complement of over 40 with many of those engaged exclusively on the processing of the fish caught rather than navigating the vessel or tending to the machinery. In a similar way, cruise ships and ferries will have a marine team who navigate the vessel. They will also have engineers to run and maintain the engines and generators. They may have more engineers on board than is strictly necessary to run the propulsion and basic husbandry machinery given the additional equipment required by such a vessel to cater for their clientele. Equally, on cruise vessels, there will be large numbers of staff to entertain the passengers or work in any onboard casino together with a veritable army of cleaners and cooks who may loosely be referred to as the “hotel” staff. Research vessels and seismic vessels may have a number of scientific staff on board in addition to the more traditional positions of Master, Chief Officer, Chief Engineer, Bosun and so on. Dive-support vessels have divers. The list can go on of the roles of people whose work comprises or contributes to the principal purpose of the vessel but whose role is not one of those of a traditional seaman. Where do we draw the line between who is “crew” and who is not — if indeed a line needs to be drawn at all? In 1899 there was the case of Anglo-Argentine Live Stock Produce Agency Limited v Temperley Steam Shipping Co. Limited. The vessel was on a voyage from Argentina to Europe with cattle when she had to put into Bahia as a General Average act. The question arose as to whether the cattlemen employed by the charterers were “crew”. In delivering his judgment, Bingham J advised: “In my opinion they are not part of the crew at all; they are not under the command of the master; they are not in the service of the shipowners; they did not sign the ship’s articles; nor are they in any way engaged in the navigation of the vessel.” It is not clear whether Bingham J was looking for all of the above tests to be passed to have considered the cattlemen as crew or just any one of them or, more likely, in my opinion, the cattlemen failed a more subjective “sniff test” of what constituted a crew member. In 1971 this Association’s Advisory Committee issued an opinion which defined the term “crew” as: “The term ‘crew’ comprises those members of the ship’s complement of sea-going rank engaged under articles and/ or entered in the Master’s portage bill or harbour wage account.” Let us start with the second part of the definition that the crew member must be “engaged under articles and/ or entered in the Master’s portage bill or harbour wage account.” This requirement is increasingly antiquated for “proper shipping” let alone fishing vessels. Crew members are as likely to have a shore based contract signed directly with the shipowner as anything else. If the shipowner owns several ships — as in the offshore supply industry — they may be transferred between vessels very frequently and freely (even at sea) and the most that can be said for them was that they may have appeared on a crew list somewhere at some point in time. There is no doubt, however, that the Chief Engineer was the Chief Engineer and the First Officer, the First Officer as they were required to hold those tickets to satisfy safe manning requirements. The types of engagement vary enormously from many paged employment contracts to contracts which identify the individual as an independent contractor down to a handshake with a guy, or girl, you met in the pub. Whilst portage bills still exist, their use is far from universal in the modern world and we are left, I think, with the second half of the Advisory Committee’s decision being a little beyond its sell-by date and failing Bingham J’s “sniff test”. 14

Annual Report 2018

Turning now to the first part of the definition, frustratingly, the opinion does not provide any background to how this definition was arrived at or who might be considered to be of “sea-going rank”. By phrasing the definition as “…those members of the ship’s complement of sea-going rank…”, it is clear, however, that the Committee saw the “crew”, for the purposes of General Average and Clause 16 of the Institute Time Clauses, as a subset of the ship’s complement as, presumably, there were people on board who were not of “sea-going rank”. In the late 1800s, one of the very first Rules of Practice that this Association adopted sought to standardise General Average allowances under the York/Antwerp Rules for the maintenance of the officers and crew. Whilst the Rule has since been long been rescinded, the rule allowed for varied amounts per day for officers and crew as well as depending on whether they were engaged on passenger steamers, passenger sailing vessels or cargo vessels. Officers were defined as: “the Master, deck officers, engineers (in the case of a steam vessel) as well as the doctor and purser if carried”. Crew were simply defined as “the remainder of the ship’s company”. It would appear that the Association at that time held a more generous opinion as to whom should be included when considering allowances as they included the whole “ship’s company” which I would suggest is synonymous with the “ship’s complement” and not a subset of it. In the case of Thompson v H&W Nelson in 1913, a steward was determined to be a “seaman” in relation to the Merchant Shipping Act although whether that is sufficient to constitute a “seagoing rank” remains unclear to me. The current Merchant Shipping Act defines a “seaman” as: “every person (except Master and Pilots) employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship.” Chapter 12-13 of the current Nordic Plan, which is used extensively by Scandinavian insurers and owners when insuring ships as is their equivalent of the Institute Clauses, provides for insurers to be liable for the cost of removing a vessel from one port to another in certain circumstances. The chapter provides for insurers to be liable for the wages and maintenance of the “necessary” crew as a part of the costs of removal. The commentary which accompanies the Plan and which helps to explain the coverage states “The requirement that the crew must be necessary is new in relation to the 1964 Plan. In the consideration of this question, regard must be had as to what is necessary with a view to the removal. The maritime crew will obviously be covered, but normally not hotel and shop staff on a passenger liner, or mobile repair teams who work temporarily on board. However, the provisions must be implemented with some caution: it is not the intention to force the assured to empty the ship of crew for shorter voyages.” The intent seems quite clear that the maritime crew are covered but not the hotel crew. However, the statement that the allowance does not “normally” cover the hotel crew and the last sentence that “the provisions must be implemented with some caution: it is not the intention to force the assured to empty the ship of crew for shorter voyages” suggests that there may be some circumstances where the hotel crew would be paid for. I am assured, however, by our Scandinavian cousins that no such circumstances have ever been found or are really envisaged and that their practice is to exclude the hotel staff on the basis that they are not “necessary” for any removal. The inference would be, however, that without the word “necessary” being in the section, the insurers would be liable for the wages and maintenance of the full ship’s complement — including hotel staff. So where does this leave us with the Institute Clauses and our fishing vessel with a large “factory crew” or a cruise vessel and her “hotel” staff given the Advisory Committee’s statement that we should only consider personnel of “sea-going rank”? We have a confused field of possibilities as to who the “crew” are: (a) The Merchant Shipping Act says it is more or less everyone on the ship except the Master.

(b) The Association’s Advisory Committee say it is everyone engaged under articles and of “sea- going rank”.

(c) The Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) and the York/Antwerp Rules do not provide a definition 15

Annual Report 2018

of crew but make allowances for the Wages and Maintenance of the “Master, Officers and Crew” which suggests that the term “crew” is not intended to include the Master and officers.

(d) The Fishing vessel clauses mention an allowance for the wages of the “crew” only. If the Institute Clauses have consistent definitions of words between the clauses, is this intended to exclude any allowances for wages of the Master and any officers? In terms of who are the members of the crew, looking objectively, I think we have to look at the purpose of the vessel and personnel who are employed directly or indirectly by the insured to contribute to the commercial mission of the vessel. These, I would suggest, have to be considered a part of her “crew”. The purpose of a fish factory vessel is to catch fish and turn that into a distributable packaged product. As such not only the navigation and engineering staff (who get the vessel in the right position) but also the deck hands who work the fishing machinery and the factory staff who process the catch are working towards the vessel’s commercial purpose. In a similar way, the hotel staff on a cruise vessel work towards the commercial purpose of looking after, providing for and entertaining the paying guests. I would stress the need for the crew to work directly or indirectly for the insured. Where one has the owner of a cruise vessel which has a casino on board and the owners simply rents out the space on the vessel to a third-party operator who takes the profit from the venture, then the casino workers are no more crew than the cattlemen in the Anglo-Argentine case. They are employees of the charterer and do not pass Bingham J’s “sniff test”. By contrast, if the owner of the vessel merely outsources the operation of the casino to a professional third party but retains the profits from the casino and is directly interested in their operation, then I think the casino workers are a part of the crew in the same way as the situation were on “proper ships” are manned by people provided by third parties crewing agencies. The past year has seen an explosion of interest in autonomous vessels. Hardly a week goes by without there being a talk, seminar or article about the impact that these vessels may have on our shipping, maritime law and marine insurance. One of the challenges which will have to be addressed is as to whether any of the shore-based operatives are “crew”. I do not have the answers to this, sadly, but I suspect that some work will need to be done to adapt the standard insurance clauses as, if one of the main attributes of a crew is that they have to be on board the vessel, then the current named peril of “negligence of crew” will be severely curtailed. As any average adjuster in the room will tell you, a significant number of machinery claims are covered as a result of this peril and it is naïve to assume that just because no-one sails with the vessel that the engineers who undertake the maintenance on the engines will do any better of a job than their current seafaring cousins. So when looking at wages, if insurers want to restrict allowances for “crew wages” to a smaller subset of individuals than the full ship’s complement, then I would suggest, as the Scandinavians have tried to do with the Nordic Plan, that clearer and more specific wording would be required and would not be overly complex to draft. A few well-chosen and placed words would suffice. Lastly on this topic, is there any significance to the fact that the wages provisions in the Fishing Vessel clauses only refers to the wages of the “crew” and not the “Master, Officers and crew” as in the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) and other Institute Clauses? I think the answer to this question has to be generally “no” — more especially where the Master is a paid employee of the fishing company. Where the Master is the insured owner of the vessel, a more complex question may need to be addressed. And so we turn to what wages are. Here, at least, we have a number of more helpful definitions. Rule X1(c)(i) of the latest York/Antwerp Rules provides that: “wages include all payments made to or for the benefit of the master, officers and crew, whether such payments be imposed by law upon the shipowners or be made under the terms of articles of employment.” 16

Annual Report 2018

More specifically, the Advisory Committee of this Association in their 1971 report concluded that “The term “wages” comprises the gross amount of all those payments made by the Shipowners to the members of the crew on a monthly, weekly or other periodic basis including leave pay, overseas allowance etc. and the employers’ contribution to State and other Insurance and/or Pension Schemes which relate to those payments, and also payments of overtime to the crew in pursuance of their normal watchkeeping and/or other duties which may loosely be termed regular overtime.” This definition adds to the York/Antwerp Rules definition a requirement for the payments to be made on a monthly, weekly or other periodic basis. The matter would therefore appear to be relatively settled in that wages includes all payments to the crew made on a periodic basis including such items as national insurance of pension contributions as well as regular overtime etc. However, not all fishing boat crews are traditional employees. Avid watchers of The Deadliest Catch on Cable TV’s The Discovery Channel will know that it is not uncommon for the crew to be paid a share of the voyage profits as a catch bonus, as either the whole or a substantial part of their earnings. Whilst some of these “Share fishermen” as they are known have dubious contractual arrangements with the owners at best, others will often have a contract which identifies them as “Independent Contractors”. How then do we or should we make allowances for wages where such arrangements are in place? Where someone is compensated for their labour by a specified share of the profit from a voyage, how do we make allowances for those wages during a general average detention or under the Institute Fishing Vessel Clause 9? Is any allowance possible as, if the vessel is not fishing, there is no profit to be shared? In Thompson v H&W Nelson in 1913 it was determined that an agreement to pay a 5% commission on bar sales to a steward on an ocean steamer came outside of the definition of a seaman’s wages in relation to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. In that case, the agreement to pay the commission was not recorded in the ship’s articles but even so, the payment of the commission could be enforced. In the example of bar sales, however, the sales existed. The commission was actually earned and the steward was only looking to enforce its payment. In the case of a fishing vessel which is out of action due to an insured casualty, there is no catch for the crew to share the profits in. I think, therefore, on a strict interpretation of the term “wages”, there would be a good argument for saying that nothing was payable even where a payment was made by a fish boat owner for what amounted to an ex-gratia settlement in the absence of any legal obligation to pay. That said, I doubt that it was in the mind of the 1971 Advisory Committee to specifically exclude people employed on such terms despite the fact that the payments are not made “…on a monthly, weekly or other periodic basis”. I think the 1971 Committee, in relation to particular average claims, was only trying to set a limit on what constituted wages for those more traditionally employed such that Clause 16 did not necessarily exclude specific and exceptional bonuses paid to the crew for work such as bilge cleaning prior to hot work where that is required for insured damage repairs. But a closer look at share fishing and independent contractor arrangements can sink us further into the grey. The reason for these arrangements can be not only to establish a method of payment also to try and circumvent some of the employment regulations which increasingly play a part in most people’s working lives. Obligations towards health and safety and holiday entitlements would be examples. In many parts of the world independent contractor arrangements are coming under the microscope. Where they are an attempt to avoid workplace legislation there is an understandable desire by Government agencies that this should not persist. The nature of the relationship needs to be examined in all cases but where a person spends the vast majority of their time working for the same principal, using their equipment and under their direct supervision, it is increasingly hard to see them as true independent contractors as opposed to employees. As employees they are generally able to take advantage of the labour laws which, in many countries, would include payment of a minimum hourly wage. 17

Annual Report 2018

It is also relevant to remember that Clause 9 of the Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses owes its parentage to the old British Trawler All Risks Clauses of the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, there would have been few, if any, salaried fishermen and so the clause must have been intended to have application to share fishing arrangements. If we were therefore to consider allowing payments to a crew of a vessel who are paid on commission, the question is, therefore, how much should we allow? Whilst they are not fishing, they are earning no commission but they may be legally entitled to at least the minimum wage. I am not sure that it is the role of the adjuster to become a fishing crew employment law specialist. One maritime lawyer who I consulted in the writing of this commented that the advice he had received from his father when he started in the profession was never to accept instructions from prostitutes or the crews of ships. (Chuckling) I, for one, am happy to heed his advice. I think the answer here is simply to look at what is reasonable and what is actually paid by the owners. A reasonable fish boat owner might pay the crew an amount based on what they could reasonably have expected to have earned over the period of repairs. Such an amount will not be static but will likely be reflective of fish prices at the time, the time of the year, the part of the fishing season that they are in at the time and the contemporary performance of other fishing boats in the fleet or competitors. Evidently, if the repairs are undertaken during the off-season when the boat would not be working anyway and the crew not earning any commission, then no payment would necessarily be required. The clauses is a simple clause which seeks to allow a fish boat owner to retain and pay his crew during insured damage repairs. However, as we have seen, this can become surprisingly complex depending on how the crew are customarily remunerated. Whilst we have looked at two employment options (salaried employees and independent contractors or share fishermen), there is no doubt that there are other models out there. I cannot believe that the drafters of the clause intended to significantly discriminate against one form of employment in preference to another and so long as the insured is making a reasonable payment in line with his contractual and legal obligations, one might expect some underwriter sympathy. I would be relatively certain that underwriters do not take the employment status of the crew into account as an underwriting criteria despite the marked impact that the wages of a 40-man crew might have on a claim. It therefore remains open for the underwriters and the brokers to make it plain what the intention of the cover is for any particular fleet and either delete the wages clause altogether (and possibly substitute that from the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls)) or clarify what insurers are content to pay in the event that the crew are not compensated by means of a traditional wage. The question of what constitutes “maintenance” was also addressed by the 1971 Advisory Committee Opinion where they stated that “The term “maintenance” comprises the cost of provisions, laundry etc. for the crew together with the cost of providing accommodation on shore in certain cases.” Where the crew remain on board a ship, generally, adjusters make an allowance of a certain dollar amount per man per day in respect of maintenance. The amount may vary depending on the location and the relative cost of provisions or the likely cost to the shipowner of providing for his particular crew. As previously mentioned, in the very early years of this Association, there was a Rule of Practice for the allowances to be made in General Average under the York-Antwerp Rules in respect of the cost of maintenance of the officers and crew. This attempt to standardise the allowances lasted for several years. The allowances for officers ranged from £16.00 to £24.50 in modern money depending on the type of vessel and £5.00 to £8.50 for crew depending on where they came from. One occasionally gets a mass of restaurant receipts from a shipowner where the crew have dined ashore. They tend to vary from receipts from the local Burger King or KFC to those from more traditional restaurants. Apart from being of some anthropological interest into the dietary habits for seafarers, the daily allowance (which not only covers food and other husbandry items) is generally to be preferred. In some cases, maintenance can include the cost of putting the crew up ashore where the repairs make the vessel uninhabitable. Such cases are relatively rare. Allowances for maintenance, therefore, rarely give rise to many issues whether in fish boats or elsewhere. 18

Annual Report 2018

FISHING VESSELS AND GENERAL AVERAGE The second aspect I would like to explore with regard to fishing vessels and their claims is General Average. As mentioned, fishing vessels generally have a fishing voyage profile which sees them leaving Port A to some point in the oceans where they start fishing and, following their campaign, returning to whence they came. This is a similar voyage profile to offshore supply vessels, anchor handling tugs, some scientific vessels and even bunker barges which service outside port-limit anchorages. For many, the idea of a General Average on a fishing vessel will come as a surprising concept. In most cases the vessel and her catch are owned by the same people and there is, therefore, no obvious “common maritime adventure” which, generally requires two or more parties to be involved. This, however, does not prevent a general average following the decision of Montgomery v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co in 1902 and which became enshrined in section 66(7) of the Marine Insurance Act as “Where ship, freight and cargo, or any two of these interests, are owned by the same assured, the liability of the insurer in respect of general average losses or contributions is to be determined as if those subjects were owned by different persons.” There could be an interesting situation with regard to our friends the share fishermen. As a reminder, these are those crew members who are compensated by a portion of the voyage profit. Were the vessel to be lost, in addition to any concerns about their life, their share of the catch profits would also be lost. I have never heard of a situation where the crew have been asked to contribute in respect of this as something akin to freight at risk but, in theory, and subject to the terms of their contract, it may be possible. That said, it may take a brave shipowner to try and enforce such a contribution from his crew. The General Average and Salvage clause of the Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses (Clause 8) states that claims should be adjusted in accordance with the York-Antwerp Rules 1974 if so required by underwriters and that the insured value without deduction for any damage shall be taken as the Contributory Value. This last point is a significant concession by insurers in that more normally the ship’s contributory value would be based on her damaged value which, assuming that the vessel is fully (or over) insured as against her market value, would be a lower sum generating a lower contribution. In the absence of the ability of underwriters to require the general average to be adjusted in accordance with the York-Antwerp Rules 1974, the adjustment would be drawn up according to the law and practice where the adventure ends — most likely where the catch is discharged. This may present a number of challenges to all involved and, in practice, all general averages on fishing vessels with which I have been involved with have been adjusted in accordance with the York-Antwerp Rules. The catch on board the vessel may or may not be insured. Whilst it is common for larger vessels to have catch insurance in view of the accumulation of catch value which can occur towards the end of a long campaign, it is not universally insured and rarely on smaller or inshore fishing vessels. Where the catch is insured, it generally comes with a substantial deductible although these rarely apply to general average contributions. The vast majority of general average situations on fishing vessels do not get recognised and go unadjusted and unaccounted for. This is usually through the parties not being aware of the issues. In many cases it is not particularly relevant. Most fishing vessel salvages or tows to port are undertaken by sister vessels or other vessels in the local fishing fleet with the salvage award being determined by the ridicule delivered by one’s peers and a number of crates of Heineken required to keep everybody happy rather than resort to complex arbitration proceedings. Even where there are major issues things often just get resolved. Two years ago when a fishing vessel got caught in the growing icefield around Antarctica as winter approached following a main engine issue, a US Coast Guard icebreaker spent several days getting to them and bringing them out. Having prepared the insurers and owners for the receipt of an eye-watering salvage demand, the Coast Guard surprised everybody 19

Annual Report 2018

by simply expressing ‘their gratitude’ to the vessel for getting herself stuck as it afforded a rare opportunity for some real-life training. (Laughter) I suspect a few slabs of Speights Beer also passed hands. That all said, over the last few years I have observed an increasing trend for such salvages not to be done on a gratis basis. With large fishing vessel values being in the millions of dollars and the lost catch value of having to stop fishing and aid another vessel running, in some cases, to over US$ 100,000 a day, this is now a significant game. In addition, these vessels have to go further and further to find their fish with a trip from New Zealand to the South Pole fishing grounds taking a week and representing a significant investment in time and money before you start fishing. So what are the issues if the vessel has a casualty and has to return to her home port to effect repairs following a main engine issue? The return may be under the tow of another vessel or, assuming the vessel has two engines, she may be able to limp back slowly on one. If there is a General Average, the shipowner can claim the costs of getting to and from a port of refuge under the York-Antwerp Rules, Rule X, and the wages and maintenance of the crew and some other items during the resulting prolongation of the voyage under Rule XI, as well, importantly, commission and interest. If the casualty happens on the outward voyage before she reaches the fishing field and starts to catch fish, there is no common maritime adventure, as yet, there is no catch. I do not consider that one can include the potential earnings from the voyage as a quasi “freight at risk” as I have seen mentioned occasionally. The Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses do not have a “Ballast GA” clause as the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) do. Such a clause allows a shipowner to claim from his hull and machinery insurance many of the additional amounts which he would be able to claim as General Average even when there is no General Average as a result of the vessel being in ballast. For a fishing vessel therefore, the return to its home port or other port of refuge would be considered as a removal for repairs and adjusted as a Particular Average event. Given the policy Wages and Maintenance Clause which pays for the wages of the crew during these repairs, the insured is not significantly disadvantaged by the absence of a Ballast GA clause in the policy. Equally, if the vessel suffered a casualty during the trip home and once full of fish, the situation would not present any unusual difficulties. One would adjust the claim on the same basis as a cargo vessel which suffers a casualty and is towed into her port of discharge. Only any additional costs of entry (such as the net cost of towage) would generally fall to be considered as General Average. But if the vessel can slow steam in on one engine, there is no deviation in the voyage, probably no extraordinary expenditure and no general average. The difficulty comes where the vessel suffers a casualty mid-fishing campaign. A fishing vessel heads south from New Zealand towards the Southern Ocean fishing grounds and arrives after a week-long ballast voyage. She sets her nets and starts fishing and catching fish for what is expected to be a four-week campaign followed by another week long trip back to New Zealand to discharge her catch, rotate the crew and start again. However, after two weeks and with half the expected catch on board, she suffers a breakdown to one of her two main engines which cannot be fixed at sea. Remaining in the challenging environment of the Southern Ocean with only one main engine is not considered safe and the vessel picks up her nets and slow steams back to New Zealand on one engine. On arrival back at her home port, the catch on board is discharged and the vessel undertakes the repairs to the main engine in the normal way. Is there a general average? We have some of the ingredients: There is a common maritime adventure between the vessel and her catch, as we have discussed. The vessel and her catch are in peril as remaining where they are with only one engine is not considered safe. The decision to return to New Zealand was voluntary and reasonable, and the operation has been successful in that the vessel and her catch have survived. So what can we allow? 20

Annual Report 2018

As far as the catch on board is concerned, it may well look at the issue as one where the moment it arrived on board the vessel, it was destined to be discharged at the vessel’s home port. It became the equivalent of cargo which had a designated port of discharge. All that has happened is that the vessel has travelled to that port and discharged the catch. The additional costs of getting to the port (such as towage costs, if incurred) may be allowed as General Average but there has been no prolongation of the voyage as is required by Rule XI(a) of the York-Antwerp Rules to justify an allowance for wages and maintenance of the crew. In fact there has been a contraction of the voyage. The 14th Edition of Lowndes and Rudolf states simply:

“If a ship can be said to have entered a port or place of refuge when, for the common safety, she enters a port which she would in any event have entered as a port of call, there is no prolongation of the voyage within the meaning of” … Rule XI(a).

As such no allowance in General Average can ever be made for the wages and maintenance of the crew or similar expenses in General Average after the vessel has caught her first fish and therefore has cargo on board with the home port as its port of discharge. It is my birthday next month and I am therefore a Gemini — the twins. This has meant that I rarely consider that there is only one way of looking at anything. Looking at it from the other end of the telescope, as far as the vessel is concerned, there has been a deviation. Had the casualty not occurred, she would have continued trawling around the Southern Ocean for a few more weeks. The physical deviation may not be that great or hard to quantify. Whilst we will know the latitude and longitude where the vessel was when she started back to New Zealand, we will not necessarily know the latitude and longitude that she would have been at two weeks later when she would have started back to New Zealand had the casualty not occurred. What we do have, however, is a deviation in time. Not that familiar to Doctor Who fans which requires a Tardis, but the fishing boat’s return trip is taking place two weeks earlier than expected. When the fishing boat owner invested the time and money to send his vessel down to the Southern Ocean, he expected to get a return based on a four-week campaign. This has been cut short and he has not got the full return on his investment. An alternative approach would be to say that, in theory, the owner could have sailed the vessel back to the home port (or another port of refuge), undertaken the necessary repairs and then returned to the fishing grounds to complete the voyage without having discharged the catch he had on board. He had done that, we would likely have seen the whole deviation as a general average deviation without as many issues unless he would not have been able to get back to the fishing grounds during what remained of that particular season. This would require us to take the view that the home port only becomes a “port of call” once the vessel is full or at least nearly full and the vessel is heading in that direction. Whilst no owner is likely to pass up the opportunity of discharging his catch when he can and emptying the vessel so that he can make full value of the next voyage, if there is anything we have learned in the last year or two it is that alternatives which would be allowed as general average, however apparently unreasonable, have to be considered. If one takes this approach, then the deviation back to the home port is all General Average unless the vessel was full at the time of the loss. With the discharge of the catch at the home port, the original “voyage” is abandoned and the general average allowances cease on the completion of the catch discharge in accordance with the York-Antwerp Rules X1(b). The nonsense of this for me, however, is that there comes a singular point in time when there is sufficient fish on board to say that the return home is to a “port of call” and no (or limited) General Average allowances can be made. Before that singular point I time, the return is a deviation and the allowances in General Average can be substantially more generous. This “All or Nothing” result does not fit with the concepts of equity and fairness which are the DNA which underpins General Average. 21

Annual Report 2018

As I said at the start, fishing-vessel claims are not always that straight forward and raise issues which are grey at best. The average adjusters I asked expressed opinions from “There was never a General Average deviation once the catch was on board” to “There was always a General Average deviation”. The only thing they essentially agreed on was that there either was a general average deviation or there was not. In other words, the owner either recovered the full costs associated with returning to the home port (wages and maintenance of crew, fuel and stores, port charges and so on) as general average or he received nothing. I believe that this is one of those situations where trying to shoe-horn “proper shipping” concepts into fishing vessel, some offshore supply boat and similar claims produces nonsensical and inequitable results. With fishing-vessel claims we have what might be termed a “benevolent shipowner” in that he is generally also the owner of the cargo. We also, very likely, have a “benevolent cargo insurer” (not words which often appear in the same sentence). The cargo or catch insurer is often also either the hull insurer or at least the leading insurer or holding a significant share of the hull cover. It ought, therefore, be possible to generate a wording whereby some equity is achieved for both hull insurers and the insured. Allowances based on the percentage of expected catch on board at the time of the loss would seem sensible. If he had caught very little, then the allowances would be more generous than if he was almost full. The current “all or nothing” approach will almost certainly unduly benefit the insurers or the insured to the expense of the other and be properly equitable in very few cases. Such a modification to the adjustment of general average would normally require the agreement of cargo. In this case, as mentioned, with our benevolent cargo insurer, this may be possible and the catch and hull policies could have similar clauses. Alternatively, and more simply, the hull cover could include a general average absorption clause leaving the catch policy to respond solely to claims for damaged catch and leaving catch contribution to general average and salvage with the hull insurer. In most cases, a catch’s proportion of general average is relatively small and so this should not be a significant issue. As always, if the insurers or the insureds, through their brokers, do not like the way certain expenses or situations are being adjusted, it is always open for them to amend the wording or manuscript of a clause to suit their needs. Such an approach would most likely require a lead from the more sophisticated markets of the world where marine insurance remains a speciality. Whilst there are specialists, in many parts of the world, fishing vessels are often broked and insured by people who are more confident discussing the cover available for farm irrigation systems and cattle in transit than general average. The title of this address is “Fishing — Shades of Grey”. I hope that by looking at some of the issues which fishing vessel claims produce, we can bring clarity not only to those claims but also to those areas of “proper shipping” which they touch. In the last few weeks we have heard of an initiative from the London Market to review, once again, the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls). This is laudable and one can only wish them luck and skill in both developing the wording and then getting the markets of the world to adopt them. It seems strange that the cargo market appears to readily adopt the new Institute Cargo Clauses but the Hull markets cling to the 1983 version of the Hull Clauses with such vigour. If the ILU does manage to get a new set of Hull clauses widely adopted, it would be hoped that they would continue on the good work and turn their eye to some of the less frequented pages of Witherby’s such as the Institute Fishing Vessel Clauses. Thank you very much. (Applause) THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Willum. Before taking questions and comments from the floor, do we have your permission to put your address on the website? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 22

Annual Report 2018

THE SECRETARY: So I will throw it open to the floor. Does anyone have any comments? Would you say your name for the record. MR. TONY BRAIN (Chairman, Association of Average Adjusters of the United States and Canada): Chairman, Madam Secretary, Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. I have the honour to be the current Chairman of the Association of Average Adjusters of the United States and Canada. Mr Chairman, from my members to yours, I bring you greetings this morning. What a great address this morning. We handle quite a lot of fish-boat claims in Canada from factory-freezer trawlers all the way down to inshore craft owned by father and son. Obviously, I would like to read in detail in peace and quiet time what you have said this morning, Chairman. I believe that we are in agreement as to the treatment of various items. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not comment upon wages and maintenance. The clause is all-embracing. Unless underwriters wish to amend the clause, I think it opens doors. To some of the fish-boat owners that I talk to, crew is everything. If you say, “What about the Master and the Officers?”, well, that’s the crew, going aside from any legal test. We ask to see contracts of employment. We ask to see union agreements. Some of these vessels, believe it or not, the big factory trawlers, still work on the shake of a hand. There are no contracts, believe it or not. It is a very interesting area of marine insurance. We, as average adjusters, look at what is fair and reasonable. Anyhow, Mr Chairman, thank you very much for your address this morning. I would also like to invite you, as you are now the in-coming Chairman, or the continuing Chairman, to our Annual General Meeting in New York on 3rd and 4th October. We would be delighted to have you and Ann attend our event. On a personal side, we had a great time last night. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Good. (Applause) THE SECRETARY: Do we have any other comments? Frank. MR. FRANK NOLAN (President, US Maritime Law Association): Chairman, I am the President of the United States Maritime Law Association. I found your address very informative this morning. As a marine-finance lawyer, I try not to focus on what happens after we put the wording down, but I do appreciate the discussion of the new ways of doing things, how they affect the old rules and how difficult they are to adopt and enact. I am chairing an international working group of the CMI as well talking about the transformation of the subject that we are all consumed with, which is whether it be a vessel or not a vessel in the normal circumstance. There are some similarities on this moving ideology. I would like to thank you very much for your generous hospitality last night. I am still recovering. (Laughter and applause) MS. VIBEKE KOEFOD (Nordic Association of Average Adjusters): Chairman, thank you for your very interesting Address today. It is an interesting topic. Also thank you for yesterday evening. It was held in a very pleasant place. It was a very enjoyable evening. Thank you very much. (Applause) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. JOERN GRONINGER (President, Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs): I am the President of AMD, the International Association of Average Adjusters. By chance, I happen to the President of the German Association of Average Adjusters. So I have two associations behind me on behalf of whose members I would like to convey their greetings to you all. Thank you for the invitation. Thank you for two points of change this year. Your address involved a topic that I do not, really, come across very often in my work. Fishing vessels are not what we are dealing with usually. That was an interesting change. Also the change of venue for yesterday evening was interesting because it took us to a completely different part of town which, usually, when you come over for work, you would not see. It was a very nice evening and very pleasant. (Applause) 23

Annual Report 2018

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. MR. STEFANO CAVELLO (Secretary, Associazione Liquidatori Avarie Marittime): I am from the Italian Association of Average Adjusters. I wish to congratulate you and thank you for the interesting topic that comprised your address. I wish to convey to you and all the members of the Association, as well as the Fellows, my personal greetings and the greetings from the Italian Association, which I represent. Thank you. (Applause) THE SECRETARY: Are there any other comments or questions? (No response) It is time for lunch for those who can stay. THE CHAIRMAN: I look forward to seeing you at The Savoy this evening. Thank you for coming.


Annual Report 2018

Fellows 2018 Ahern - John R (1983)

Rogers Wilkin Ahern LLP, London, UK Tel: +44 207 220 0920 Email:

Bramwell - Ian J (1997)

London International A.A. Co., Peterborough, UK Tel: +44 1733 551 003 Email:

Cameron - Gordon M (1986)

Poseidon Adjusters (Singapore) Pte Ltd., Singapore Tel: +65 6333 4044 Email:

Cao - Jie Matthew (2015)

Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2527 3202 Email:

Chiu - Benson K K (1992)

Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2399 6188 Email:

Clancey - David C (1978)

Marine Adjusting Solutions, Herts, UK Tel: +44 7785 312 443 Email:

Cole - Douglas A (1979)

Consultant, Kent, UK Tel: +44 1892 534 276 Email:

Duncan - J Miles (1977)

Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email:

Ewing - Gerald J (1987)

Regis Mutual Management Pty Ltd, NSW, Australia Tel: +61 2 9489 5415 Email:

Fischer - Burkhard P (2011)

Albatross Adjusters Ltd, Limassol, Cyprus Tel: +357 2558 8988 Email:

Harvey - Michael D (1978)

Harvey Ashby Ltd, Essex, UK Tel: +44 1206 689 500 Email:

Jones - Keith (1984)

Aon Risk Solutions, London, UK Tel: +44 207 086 4219 Email:

Kilbee - Chris C (1987)

Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 6438 4016 Email:

Macdonald - John A (1972)

Macdonald Hebditch & Co. Ltd, Surrey, UK Tel: +44 1428 715 533 Email:

Madge - Tim J W (1979)

Mediterranean Average Adjusting Co, London, UK Tel: +44 1920 7265 2020 Email:

Magkanaris - Stelios (2017) The Swedish Club, Piraeus, Greece Tel: +30 211 120 84000 Email: Martin - Keith J (1990)

Marsh Ltd, London, UK Tel: +44 207 357 2093 Email:

Miller - Tristan E L (2014)

Harvey Ashby Ltd, Essex, UK Tel: +44 1206 689 500 Email:

Mody - Leena (2002)

Leena Mody & Associates, Mumbai, India Tel: +91 22 2506 5090 Email:

O’Neill – Amy (2013)

Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: amy.o'


Annual Report 2018

Fellows 2018 (continued) Pannell - David M (1968)

Pannell & Co, Surrey, UK Tel: +44 1483 566 533 Email:

Paton - Andrew M (1987)

Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email:

Richards - Willum (1992)

Willum Richards Consulting Ltd, Central Otago, New Zealand Tel: +64 3 443 5134 Email:

Robinson - Heather (2017) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7398 5314 Email: Rogers - Nigel J C (1985)

Rogers Wilkin Ahern LLP, London, UK Tel: +44 207 220 0920 Email:

Rowland - Paul O (1996)

Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 207 015 2045 Email:

Sekine - Tsukasa (1992)

Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd, Chiyoda-Ku, Japan Tel: +81 3 3518 9601 Email:

Silver - Paul (1986)

Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 207 015 2046 Email:

Slade - Andrew (2017) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7398 5354 Email: Sturges - Keith V (1990) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Email: Tang - Christopher Y C (1982) Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 6223 3111 Email: Tomlinson - Robert M P (2017) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7015 2042 Email: Tucker - R Ian (1992)

Maritime Adjusting Services, London, UK Tel: +44 207 256 7659 Email:

Wong - Raymond T C (1980)

T C Wong Average Consulting Ltd, Hong Kong Tel: +852 9265 9199 Email:

Wood - Richard W (1986)

Charles Taylor Management Services, Connecticut, USA Tel: +1 203 761 6070 Email:

Xu - Yibing (2008) Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2399 6148 Email:

Non-Practising Fellows Martin - John (2000) Starmans - Michael (2001)


Annual Report 2018

Honorary Fellows The Rt. Hon Sir David Steel Mr Julian Cooke Mr David Taylor Mr John Wilson Mr Anthony Kersey Mr Charles Hebditch Mr Roger Street The Rt.Hon Justice Flaux Mr Jonathan Gilman QC Mr Richard Cornah

The Rt. Hon. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers The Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Mance The Rt. Hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick The Rt. Hon. Lord Saville of Newdigate The Rt. Hon Sir Bernard Rix The Rt. Hon. Sir Stephen Tomlinson The Hon Mr Justice Teare The Rt. Hon Sir Justice Hamblen The Rt. Hon. Sir Anthony Evans

Affiliate Members International Salvage Union, UK UK Chamber of Shipping, UK

BIMCO, Denmark British Maritime Law Association, UK

Senior Associates as at May 2018 Fei Peter Xiao Ming Richards Hogg Lindley Hong Kong Gibbs Benjamin INDECS Consulting Ltd UK Hao Rui Richards Hogg Lindley China Hara Nanami Richards Hogg Lindley UK Jagannath Muthu NUA Pte Ltd Singapore Kallini Angeliki Richards Hogg Lindley (Hellas) Ltd Greece Lai William Asia Maritime Adjusting China Margaritopoulos Georgios Richards Hogg Lindley (Hellas) Ltd Greece Poojary Rathna Sudarshan Jani, Clancey & Richards India Rappal Varrier Manoj BP Singapore Pte Ltd Singapore Rowe Nicholas Richards Hogg Lindley UK Shead Joseph Richards Hogg Lindley UK Thompson John Richards Hogg Lindley UK Warr Charlotte Sarnia Training Ltd UK

Associate Members as at May 2018 Agfaransyah Mufli Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama) Indonesia Angelis George Gmar Marine Technical Consultants Inc USA Avdimiotis Athanasios Hellenic Marine Adjusters Greece Bailas Panagiotis Marine Adjusting Solutions Ltd Greece Bamforth James The Swedish Club Greece Barker Mark XL Catlin UK Belgrano-Operto Helen Charles Taylor Adjusting UK Cardy Jonathan Stichling Hahn Hilbrich GmbH Germany Chairul Zulfriandri Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia Chakos Vasilios V Chakos & Co Marine Claims Adjusters & Consultants Greece Chan Yin Ting (Amy) Tai Chong Cheang Steamship Co (H.K.) Limited HongKong Chang Jingjing BW Maritime Pte Ltd Singapore Chen Hung Yi (Jimmy) Charles Taylor Adjusting Taiwan Cho Boran Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc Japan


Annual Report 2018

Associate Members (continued) Christodoulou Kyriacos Albatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Contreras Isabel Noble Denton Marine Services - DNV GL Oil & Gas UAE Coop Derek Tri-Marine Acceptances (Pty) Ltd South Africa Dallaway Amy MS Amlin UK Drakatou Pippi Oceana Marine Claims & Adjusting Greece Drege Ronaldo Albatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Edwards Donna Howden Insurance Brokers Ltd UK Effendi Fahrizal PT. MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Ellis Jack Willis Towers Watson UK Exadaktylos Dimitrios Greece Fielding Mats Skuld Hellas Ltd Greece Fox Rachel Richards Hogg Lindley UK Gautama Mukesh Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt Ltd India Georgiou Konstantinos RSA UK Gersok Paul Campbell Shipping Ltd Bahamas Gibbins Daniel Blue Seas Adjusters Ltd UK Gilchrist Iain NEPIA UK Greene Alexander Seascope Insurance Services Ltd UK Han Freddie Tan Teck Raetsasia P & I Services Pte Ltd Singapore Heng Vanessa Sok Koon Richards Hogg Lindley Singapore Herrity Stacey Richards Hogg Lindley UK Hubbuck Jeremy W.R. Berkley Nordic Norway Ikejiri Yosuke Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd Japan Jackson Aimee Antares Managing Agency UK Jani Amit Jani, Clancey & Richards India Jani Nitika Amit Jani, Clancey & Richards India Jeong Joey Sangsu Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd Korea Johannessen Alf Inge Gard AS Norway Karaloizou Costas Abatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Kemp Alex Holman Fenwick Willan LLP UK Kilbee James Marine Claims Office of Asia Singapore Krivovs Daniils SBM Offshore France Kumar Rajeev BP Singapore Pte Ltd Singapore Letitiya Putri Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia Leung Nicole Gard (HK) Ltd Hong Kong Levantis Alexandros Levmar Engineering Greece Levendal Adriaan Daniel Petrus Emirates Group UAE Liu Adele China Luo Qian Richards Hogg Lindley China Lynskey Mark Mediterranean Average Adjusting Company UK Mackenzie Andrew Marsh Services Ltd UK Manohara Bernadette PT. MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Marsden Susanna Thomas Miller UK Martinez Gonzalez Alejandro Charles Taylor Adjusting Mexico McCabe Phillip Charles Taylor Adjusting UK McCaughey Thomas Richards Hogg Lindley UK McCoy Toni Navigators UK McDonach Tony Hill Dickinson LLP UK Minami Masafumi Allianz Fire and Marine Insurance Japan Ltd Japan Mok Anthony Gard (HK) Ltd Hong Kong Murphy Eamonn Gulf Offshore UK Musolino Pino Singapore Naqvi Syed Ali Asif Pakistan


Annual Report 2018

Associate Members (continued) Ng Fang Yao Raetsasia P&I Services Pte Ltd Singapore Osborne Debbie XL Catlin UK Otmar Melis BMS Harris & Dixon Marine UK Panter Georgie Barbican Insurance UK Pell Louise Hiscox MGA Limited UK Ping Lim Siew XL Catlin Singapore Pte. Ltd Singapore Radford Carrie Ince & Co UK Rallatos Nikolas Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Ramadhan Ghulaam PT MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Robinson Matthew Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd UK Rolland Adam Braden Marine Canada Roumanou Julia Independent Average Adjusters Ltd Greece Rowe Steven Richards Hogg Lindley UK Sabaroedin Justisia PT Radita Hutama Internusa Indonesia Sakurai Konosuke Tokyo Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Company Japan Saputro Bagus Charles Taylor Adjusting Indonesia Saraswati Rininta Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama) Indonesia Sarll Richard 7KBW UK Sasegbon Deji Richards Hogg Lindley UK Sawamura Satoshi K-Line Japan Sengendo Elizabeth Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality UK Setyorini Maurene Ayu PT Global Internusa Adjusting Indonesia Shao Jie Charles Taylor Adjusting China Shaw Alexander Richards Hogg Lindley UK Shaw Henry AON Risk Solutions UK Shimura Ryoko Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd Japan Shurville Daniel Zodiac Maritime Limited UK Sitompul Andrea Nathaly PT MCO Prima Indonesia (Marine Claim Office) Indonesia Smith Matthew Marsh Ltd UK Smith Lucy Atrium Underwriting Group Service UK Smoili Evangelia TMS Bulkers Ltd Greece Stenman Dencker Caroline IF Sweden Stevens Daniel Gallagher UK Stewart Darren Hiscox Ltd UK Symes Matthew Bank of England UK Taguchi Masakazu Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance CoLtd Japan Tan Robert Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd Singapore Tang Joseph Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd Singapore Teeling Jonet Marsh BV Netherlands Thim Ching Weng Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd Singapore Varno Klaus Norwegian Hull Club Norway Venugopalan Vineet Qatar Insurance Company UAE Vranaki Eleni Astra Ship Management Greece Watanabe Yoshihiro Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co Ltd Japan Wheatley Alex Richards Hogg Lindley UK Whittle Adam Brookes Bell UK Wilkie Graham Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance UK Willan James Richards Hogg Lindley UK Yamashita Satoru Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc Japan Yildiz Ceyhun Can SC Survey & Consultancy Turkey Youles-Fitzgerald Madonna Liberty International Underwriters Australia Young Elle Ince & Co UK Zhou Weiyan Gard (UK) Ltd UK


Annual Report 2018

Subscribers as at May 2018

Coleman Nicholas Norway Crane Anita UK Crowhurst Jason UK Curran Alan Denmark Damkjaer Kurt Denmark Dandhie Christ Indonesia Davis Alex UK De Jongh Camiel Netherlands DeGiulio Frank USA Den Haan Pieter Netherlands Dhar Ujjal India Diamantopoulou Eleni Greece Dolan James USA Dorling Chris UK Drakos Christofides Markos Cyprus Drikos Nikolaos Greece Dun Yu Kin Hong Kong Dupuis Robert Netherlands Evans Jonathan UK Everton Chris UK Exadactylos Anthony Greece Fellin Eileen USA Fenwick Victor UK Finckenhagen Knut Norway Fitz-Hugh Clark USA Florenzano Luca Italy Flori Gianluca Italy Foss Patrick UK Franseth Kaare Norway Fraser Ian Canada Fujii Nao Japan Gabel George USA Galvan Angel Spain Garrido Mauricio USA Gatti Angelo Italy Gawarikar Varun India Gibson Cosmo South America Gigney Michael UK Gill Paul Ireland Glover Peter UK Golding Maureen UK Goodacre Stephen UK Goveas Ivor UK Grafton Maria UK Gran Philip USA Grasso Joseph USA Gray Martin Greece Grecoussis Gerry Greece Green Dan UK Greene James Greece Grepne Harald Norway Groninger Joern Germany Groninger Philip Germany Gunn Richard UK Hahn Juergen Germany Hall Martin UK

Acharyya Gautam India Afun Adedoyin Nigeria Aggersbury Robin UK Ahmed Alavi Burhan India Allen Dean UK Alvisi Alberto Italy Amitani Yoshihiko Japan Anagnostopoulos John UK Ando Aya Japan Ao Yuxing UK Asbury Michael UK Baird Graeme UK Balaouras John Greece Barritt Bill UK Bartlett James USA Behar Max Japan Bell Simon Greece Bell Michael USA Berg Frode Norway Berridge Anthony UK Betancourt Ronald USA Bhardwaj Mukesh India Black Rivers USA Blackburn Julie UK Bohmer Olivier Netherlands Bolden Andrew UK Borg Barthet Maria UK Botha Christo South Africa Brain Anthony Canada Briem Gardar Iceland Brooks Philip USA Brosnan Isabel UK Bruce Jonathan UK Buhl Delia USA Burdass Tom UK Bycroft Geoff UK Calabria Marco Monaco Callaghan Maureen UK Camera Guglielmo Italy Canepa Massimo Italy Cannie Patrick UAE Carpenter Nigel Singapore Catlow Paul UK Cavallo Stefano Italy Cavallo Giorgio Italy Chan Amelia Singapore Chand Rajiv USA Chapman James USA Chen Kaiheng Japan Chomata Angeliki Greece Chow Cory Hong Kong Chung Xuanhong Singapore Clark Julian UK Clift Rhys UK


Annual Report 2018

Subscribers (continued)

Lonoce Lorenzo France Love Michael UK Lucking Michelle UK Lugg Kevin UK Lux Jonathan UK Machum Eric Canada Macinnes Alex UK MacIntyre Stuart UK Makestad Sveinung Norway Margetis George Greece Mariakis Manos Greece Marican Syed Singapore Martinoli Federico Italy Marwedel Warren USA Mather Simon UK Matrapazidis Markos Greece Mayle Tony UK McCarthy Stephen UK McCauley Michael USA McGinty Tom UK McMenamin George UK Meliala Jordan Indonesia Mellett Peter UK Metcalf Frank Canada Michalakopoulos Nikolaos Greece Milliken William USA Mitchell Matthew UK Molina Quimi Paul Ecuador Monioudis Dimitris UK Moore Donald USA Morelli Francesco Italy Mourtzanou Maria UK Mullaji Naushad Kuwait Muller Peter Netherlands Munkeby Oyvind Norway Nakada Eiichi Japan Nanjo Shinichiro Japan Naraynan Ramesh India Nesse Bente Norway Nesse Hogne Norway Newitt Edward UK Neylon Richard UK Ng Wayne Singapore Nishioka Yosuke Japan Noble John UK Nordahl Margrete Norway North Nicholas UK Olsen Stephen USA Orlando Michael USA Osmotherly Phil UK Ostbye Eli-Kristin Norway Pang William (Choon Wah) Singapore Papaioannu Andrea Italy Park Jae Hong Korea Peer Mohamad Faz UK Pereira Rucemah Brazil

Hammer Helle Norway Han Martin UK Hashiguchi Yuka Japan Hatcher Jack UK Hawkins Neil UK Hicks John UK Hill Paul UK Hogendorp Jacob Singapore Holliday Simone UK Hornish David USA Howell Peter Greece Hudson John UK Hugg Richard UK Humphreys Terence UK Hunter Glen New Zealand Ireland Jim UK Ishizaki Harumi Japan Isnaini Solikhatun Indonesia Ito Ayumi Japan Jackson Simon UK Jackson Graham UK Jacobsen Morten Norway Janssen Dirk Germany Jeon Sora UK Johnston Alistair UK Jones David UK Jones Peter UK Kafka Ioanna Greece Kakamoukas Vasilios UK Kardiakopoulos Dimitris Greece Kastanas George Greece Kauffeld Tilmann Sweden Kay Alexander Germany Keratsas Panagiotis UK Kim Chang-Hyun Rep. of Korea Knudtzon Stephen Norway Koelzer James USA Kofoed Vibeke Denmark Konig Rudolf UK Kruit Johanna Netherlands Kumar Vijay India La Fauci Federico Italy Laflin Adrian UK Langeland Truls Norway Lawrence Stewart UK Lech Anne Norway Legat Paola Italy Lemou Chrissopigi Greece Levantis Nikos Grece Lillis John USA Lim Henson Philippines Lin Sandy Linbei Sheng China Lloyd Mark UK


Annual Report 2018

Subscribers (continued)

Sydenham Chris UK Systad Anne Norway Taki Kazuhiko Sinapore Tamesue Nobuki Japan Tampubolon Guntur Indonesia Tan AhChuan Malaysia Tan Brenda Singapore Tantrum David USA Tasios Petros Monaco Tassios Nikolaos Greece Tatham Simon UK Taylor Timothy UK Teh Kiao Huoi Singapore Terrell Martin Singapore Thoresen Bernt Norway Tomita Hiroyuki Japan Tsakiris Ilias Greece Tufta Oivind Norway Tufta Oivind Norway Umeno Koji Japan Uth Henrik Denmark Vaassenden Bjorn Norway van der Valk Taco Netherlands Van Hemmen Hendrik USA Van Rompay Elizabeth Belgium Vega Alejandro Argentina Verhagen Marcel Netherlands Virvilis Isabella UK Waite Ann UK Wake Hideke Japan Walsh David UK Wang Yizhu Hong Kong Warrender Nichola UK Waterfall Joanna UK Watson Harold USA Wattel Markwin Netherlands Webb Colin UK Whelan Richard USA White Ralph USA Whyte Gordon UK Wiersma Taco Netherlands Wolf Martina Germany Wong Adrian Singapore Woods John USA Xiaoshu Ren Singapore Xu Ye China Yang Daisy China Yuliartha Aria Indonesia Zaarour Petro UK Zachopoulou Effie UK Zampichelli Giovanni Italy Zareifis Alexandros Greece Zavos Christopher UK Zhou Clark UK Zinke Jon Hong Kong Zolezzi Francesco UK

Phelps Alan Indonesia Phippard Ralph Greece Pinto Alexandre Singapore Powell Jacque UAE Prakash Om Kuwait Priano Gian Piero Italy Psyllos Ilias USA Quackenbos James USA Rachmita Anisa Indonesia Ranjen Rakesh India Rasschaert Dany Belgium Reed John UK Reischer Johanna USA Renton Alan UK Rible Stephen USA Richards William UK Roach Stephen UK Roderick Michael UK Rodriguez Antonio USA Romeijnders Johan Netherlands Rosenfeld Lars Norway Rudek Lars-Uwe Germany Rue Thomas USA Ryles Howard UK Sabbagh Ashraf El Egypt Saito Azusa Japan Sandbakken Einar Norway Sanden Roar Norway Sato Shigeki Singapore Schoutens A.C.G Netherlands Serghi Michael UK Shakarov Rashad Azerbaijan Sharma Rajit UK Shen Thomas China Shigematsu Toru Japan Siemens Jan-Andresen Germany Skeppland Jeanette Norway Skiadas Nicole Greece Slaatten Bjorn Norway Smith Robert UK Sonko Insa West Africa Soroa Jaime Spain Spencer Jonathan USA Speyer Denis Australia Sporle David UK Stavriani Christea Greece Steemers Michael Cyprus Stephens Toby UK Stone Richard USA Street Gordon UK Stroud Martin UK Sugawara Kenta Japan Sundell Marie UK Suzuki Yuto Japan


Annual Report 2018

Past Chairmen 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

May/Nov 1869 Mr T L Davison Nov 1869/May 1870 Mr W Harrison May/Nov 1870 Mr L R Baily Nov 1870/May 1871 Mr W Richards May/Nov 1871 Mr R Lowndes Nov 1871/May 1872 Mr R Lowndes 1873 Mr R Lowndes 1874 Mr J H Powell 1875 Mr M Hopkins 1876 Mr T L Davison 1877 Mr W Richards 1878 Mr G Coyte 1879 Mr R Lindley 1880 Mr L R Baily 1881 Mr W H Jones 1882 Mr E Hogg 1883 Mr C McArthur 1884 Mr H Davison 1885 Mr S Smith 1886 Mr P H Rathbone 1887 Mr S Cross 1888 Mr K W Elmslie 1889 Mr H C Jepps 1890 Mr I W Court 1891 Mr G Lidgett 1892 Sir F C Danson 1893 Mr T G Carver 1894 Mr T S Cookes 1895 Mr J S Allen 1896 Mr W E Towers 1897 Mr W Lowndes 1898 Sir D Owen, K.B.E. 1899 Mr A Lindley 1900 Mr A H May 1901 Mr W Richards, C.B.E. 1902 The Hon Mr Justice G Barnes 1903 Mr M G Towers 1904 Mr E R Lindley 1905 Mr F C Dale 1906 The Hon Mr Justice Kennedy 1907 Mr M A Rudell, C.B.E. 1908 Mr J B Wallace 1909 Mr T R Miller 1910 Mr J S Hogg 1911 Mr F T Loftus 1912 Mr J H Scrutton 1913 Mr M Dale 1914 Mr C W Henzell 1915 The Right Hon Viscount Mersey 1916 Mr B T Harland 1917 Mr G S Lloyd Davies


Mr A W Dauglish Mr AD MacKinnon Sir T J Storey, K.B.E. Mr H B Hurd Mr H T Lindley The Right Hon Viscount Sumner, G.C.E. Mr G R Rudolf Mr J D Barker Mr A H Watts The Right Hon Lord Merrivale Mr A C Smith Lt-Col D Cookes, D.S.O. Mr F E Vaughan The Hon Mr Justice Roche Mr H E May Mr H W Lindley Mr C E Fox The Hon Mr Justice MacKinnon Mr E R Lindley Mr E E Moore Mr G O Henzell, M.C. The Right Hon Lord Wright Mr G F Elmslie Mr C T Ellis, M.C. Mr E W Reading, M.C. Mr P R Bennett, B.L. The Right Hon Lord Porter Mr C B Cooper Mr J R Danson, M.A., M.C. Mr W Richards, C.B.E. Mr W D Wattleworth Mr J T Walker, M.C. The Hon Mr Justice Pilcher, M.C. Mr F G Hogg T.D. Mr G J B Edge Mr D R Miller Mr G E Towers Mr D D B Johnson, O.B.E., B.Com. Mr D V Moore Mr W T Wood The Right Hon Lord Justice Sellers, M.C. Mr M H Downes Mr S G Chubb Mr J H Lloyd Davies Mr A J Finlason M.C. Mr R H Arnold Mr C T Greenacre Mr R C Clancey, LL.B. Mr N M Gordon The Right Hon Lord Devlin, P.C. Mr G R Heselton Mr J S Crump

Annual Report 2018

Past Chairmen (continued) 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Mr D L Towers Mr R A H Arnold The Rt Hon Sir G Willmer, O.B.E., TD. Mr N G Hudson Mr G H May Mr D G Milburn Mr A B Dann M.A., ].P Mr C R D Towers The Right Hon Lord Justice Roskill Mr D C Cooper Mr W P F Bennett. MA Mr J P Duke The Right Hon Lord Justice Donaldson Mr W Richards Mr R A Stacey Mr G S Hughes Mr K V Wood The Hon Mr Justice Sheen Mr D J Wilson Mr A J Birch Mr C S Hebditch, M.A. Mr R W Hipkin Mr J S Crump Mr J C Allen Mr R R Smith


Mr J A MacDonald Mr C .I Barstow M.A. The Right Hon Lord Mustill Mr D M Pannell Mr D C Clancey Mr J M Duncan, M.A. Mr J M Duncan, M.A. Mr T J W Madge Mr T J W Madge Mr D. W. Taylor Mr M D Harvey Mr N J C Rogers Mr N J C Rogers Mr R R Cornah Mr R R Cornah The Right Hon Mr Justice Tomlinson Mr J R Ahern Mr P Silver Mr K Jones Mr K Jones Mr P Rowland Mr A Paton Mr K Martin Mr W Richards

AAA Annual Report 2018  

2018 Annual Report of the Association of Average Adjusters

AAA Annual Report 2018  

2018 Annual Report of the Association of Average Adjusters