Annual Report 2022
The Association of
Average Adjusters
Front cover photo courtesy of Australian Antarctic Division (AAD): M.v. Happy Dragon anchored at Casey Station, providing shipping services to the AAD in support of their 2021/22 Australian Antarctic Program. The Happy Dragon (built 2011) is operated by BigLift Shipping, which is the heavy lift member of the Amsterdam based Spliethoff Group. BigLift’s Happy D-type fleet consists of five multipurpose Finnish ice-classed 1A heavy lift vessels equipped with two SWL 400 mt and one SWL 120 mt cranes and certified to sail with open upper deck hatches.
Annual Report 2022
ANNUAL REPORT 2022 CONTENTS •
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION
3
•
ANNUAL CONFERENCE 4
•
THE CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS 14
• •
LIST OF FELLOWS 26 LIST OF HONORARY LIFE FELLOWS 28
•
LIST OF NON-PRACTISING FELLOWS
28
•
LIST OF HONORARY FELLOWS
28
•
LIST OF SENIOR ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
29
•
LIST OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
29
•
LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS
32
•
LIST OF AFFILIATE MEMBERS 32
•
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS 33
•
LIST OF PAST CHAIRMEN 35
Officers of the Association 2021/22 Chairman - Michiel Starmans 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
Email: admin@average-adjusters.com
Tel: (+44) 191 349 8810
Secretariat: c/o Gary Bullock, Charles Taylor Insurance Services Limited The Minster Building, 21 Mincing Lane, London EC3R 7AG
www.average-adjusters.com
Annual Report 2022
CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION My second year as Chairman of the Association was in line with the prediction in my last year’s Chairman’s introduction, that most overseas annual events were once again cancelled due to the continued COVID-19 pandemic. However, the good news was that the annual conference and dinner could take place in person again on 12th May 2022, after we just managed to digest the first informal adjusters’ dinner on 1st December 2021. Two adjusters’ dinners in five months, no surprise that the waiters could not hold back their singing abilities during the dinner in May. “But, my dear sir, the custom is the law, custom makes law. If you go into court, the other side will merely prove the custom and you are floored.” No honest adjuster now-a-days can say this; he knows that the courts now don’t pay any such homage to custom. The domain of custom, as determining law, has been so narrowed by one decision after another as to be almost nowhere; and what is more, if he were to say this, ten to one his hearer would not believe him. What then is an unfortunate adjuster to do now-a-days? I see no help for it: he must know the law and moreover he must act upon it.” These wise words in the above paragraph do not stem from my brain cells but were expressed by Richard Lowndes in the first Chairman’s Address of the Association of Average Adjusters in 1873. History repeats itself in the two UK Supreme Court decisions referred to in my Address hereafter. Future carbon emission trading allowances under new shipping legislation will be scrutinised in the same Address for General Average situations. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Another quote from a British legend, Sir Winston Churchill, which we can apply to the virtual meeting revolution instigated by the Pandemic lock-down regulations. For our Association, the Committee of Management and Annual General Meetings via Zoom (or hybrid) and the examination of Modules A1 and A2 via the online platform, TestReach, are here to stay. I believe the same applies to seminars, which are now presented via a hybrid seminar format, as we did for the first time at the joint IUA/AAA Practical Aspects of Collision Claims seminar in March 2022 and will do for the joint Young CMI/AAA Associates War Risk seminar in August 2022. This does not only attract a wider audience, who can just Zoom in without approval from their superiors for being away from the office to attend a seminar, but will also limit our carbon footprint in the future by minimising overseas travel. Due to the efforts of our Examining Committee, 2 new Fellows, 2 Senior Associates and 17 Associates were added to our Association over the last 12 months. I was given the opportunity to congratulate all new Fellows and Senior Associates able to attend the Annual Conference on 12th May, who qualified during the pandemic since 2020, and present to them their certificate with a handshake; something that could have led to a “Partygate” scandal only 6 months ago. David Pannell, as outgoing Convener of the Examining Committee, was elected as Honorary Life Fellow during the AGM in May for his contribution in increasing the number of successful exam candidates over the last two decades. I am grateful to my Vice-Chair Burkhard Fischer, the Officers and Committee members of the Association, the Secretariat Charles Taylor Insurance Services and our Secretary Ann Waite for their continued diligent work. As Chairman, I would like to thank all Fellows for their continued contribution, dedication and participation in the work of the Association. Looking at the age difference of some 50 years between the youngest and oldest Fellows practising as average adjusters, I can only conclude that adjusting remains a fascinating science for most of us. It was a great honour to serve as your Chairman over the past 2 years and I wish the Association all the best for the future. Michiel Starmans 3
Annual Report 2022
THE 153rd ANNUAL CONFERENCE (previously AGM)
of the
ASSOCIATION OF AVERAGE ADJUSTERS held at: Lloyd’s Old Library One Lime Street London EC3M 7HA on Thursday, 12th May, 2022 In the Chair: Mr Michiel Starmans
THE SECRETARY: Good morning to everyone. It is lovely to see so many faces here again. For those of you who do not know me, I am Ann Waite, the Secretary of the Association. Welcome to our AGM or Annual Conference, as it is called now. Sorry, old habits die hard. Could I ask everyone to put your phones on mute or make sure they are turned off; the usual housekeeping. At least we are not asking you to unmute your Zoom calls today. It really only remains for me to introduce our Chairman, Michiel Starmans. THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning and welcome to the 153rd Annual Conference. It has been such a long time since we have seen each other, some two years, and we are all fed up with virtual meetings, so it is good that the Old Library is still here and that so many of you could come. Unfortunately, some countries still have Covid restrictions but, hopefully, we will see them all next year.
Joseph Grasso Barbara Holland Esteban Vivanco Stefano Cavallo Vibeke Kofoed Joern Groninger
-
Association of Average Adjusters of US & Canada US Maritime Law Association Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs Italian Association of Average Adjusters Nordic Average Adjusters Association Verein Deutscher Dispacheure
First of all, I would like to say hello to our very distinguished guests who are listed here and who I had the pleasure of having a meal with yesterday in a lovely place in Chelsea, in the Manicomio restaurant. We understood that means “Restaurant of Fools”, so I think it was the right place to be there, and it is good to see that my guests could attend from the US, Argentina and Continental Europe. As I said yesterday, we had a private dinner with 14 people and seven nationalities, so it is not just an English Association of Average Adjusters, it is a true worldwide Association. We now turn to the annual report with what happened last year.
4
Annual Report 2022
1. Report by the Chairman, Michiel Starmans on the past year of the Association At the Annual General Meeting of Fellows, which was held yesterday, Sir Nigel Teare was elected to serve as the Chairman of our Association for the year 2022/23. Since his CV is embarrassingly impressive, I will first summarise the relevant adjusters’ parts and read it to you before I ask Sir Nigel to stand. Sir Nigel was the ideal candidate as a recently retired judge of the High Court of England and Wales, who has decided several high profile shipping cases, some of them involving General Average, like the ‘Polar’ piracy case in 2021, where Sir Nigel held that bills of lading did not exclude owners from claiming GA contribution from cargo interests for the ransom allowed in GA, despite incorporation of charterparty clauses in the bills of lading. Another matter was - and it is easier to say it in French – the CMA CGM Libra grounding, where Sir Nigel held that a defective passage plan resulting in a grounding outside the fairway rendered the vessel unseaworthy and entitled the cargo interests to refuse payment of their GA contribution. This ruling was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2021. Sir Nigel has been appointed as arbitrator at 10 Fleet Street since his retirement as a High Court judge. He also acted as a Lloyd’s salvage arbitrator and appeal arbitrator in his earlier professional years. He is an Honorary Fellow at St Peter’s College, Oxford and an Honorary Fellow of our Association. May I ask Sir Nigel now to stand and I know that you will wish to join me in congratulating him on his election as Chairman and wishing him a successful year in office. (Applause)
Michiel Starmans with Sir Nigel Teare
SIR NIGEL TEARE: Thank you very much indeed. I am deeply honoured to have been elected your Chairman. I am of course not an average adjuster, but throughout my career I have had the pleasure of having to read many average adjustments and I have always been in awe of their comprehensive nature, their detail and their fairness. As you have heard, I have had to deal with one or two General Average cases in court which I have very much enjoyed and so I have every expectation that I will very much enjoy this year. Thank you very much. (Applause) THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Sir Nigel. We also elected Burkhard Fischer as Vice Chairman yesterday and if I am right I guess it is the seventh time that you are Vice Chairman. I understand that even Prince Charles is feeling kind of jealous and he sends you best regards as a brother in arms in waiting to ascend the throne. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Burkhard for his support and guidance during my two years of chairmanship. I would ask him to stand so we can offer our congratulations for reelection for a seventh term and wish him all the best during the next year as Vice Chairman. (Applause) 5
Annual Report 2022
THE CHAIRMAN: More people who can stand, let’s see? David Pannell. David, this is your picture on the website! And even Google Search could not find you. It is quite astonishing that you manage to hide very well. Obviously, you need a new picture. Yesterday at the same meeting David was elected as an Honorary Life Fellow. Before we acknowledge that, I like to say something else. You have decided to step down as Convener of the Examining Committee after 23 years of service. Your successor will be Keith Martin. At the meeting yesterday you were elected as Honorary Life Fellow of our Association, for your dedicated work as the driving force behind the changes to the old examination format to the modern modular exams at the beginning of this century. You highlighted the worrying decline in exam candidates in your address in 1998 and decided to head up the Examining Committee from 1999 until today, in order to turn this around, and so you did. And we now have 49 Fellows, 11 Senior Associates and 150 Associates. Half of the Fellows and all the Associates have qualified under your leadership. May I therefore ask you to stand so we can honour you for this amazing achievement. (Applause) Thank you very much, David. The other officers of the Association remain Tristan Miller as Treasurer and David Clancey as Convenor of the Advisory & Dispute Resolution Panel. I would have loved of course to honour you as well in a similar manner as I just did, but Ann has told me there are a couple of hot starters at the lunch venue and that she likes to eat them hot! We carry on with the sad news over the last 12 months. John Ahern, a past Chairman, died at the age of 73 last February. John worked for over 50 years as an adjuster with RHL and Rogers Wilkin Ahern and was a coauthor of A Guide to Marine Hull Insurance Claims. Apart from being an excellent adjuster, he was known as a man of immense kindness, a talented teacher, with unique humour. He served many years on the Exam Committee. In his address in May 2011, John gave a very distinctive summary of piracy cases, case law and advice on which insurance should pay the piracy related costs. We received the following resignations: Doug Cole, Tsukasa Sekine and Gordon Cameron. They have all resigned from the Association as a result of their retirement, and we wish them well. Events Now to the events of last year. On 2 November, we had the BMLA annual dinner which was attended by Andrew Slade as the AAA’s representative. On 1 December, we had the informal Adjusters’ Dinner. This was the first informal dinner organised by the AAA and was attended by some 100 members at round tables with no black tie. The setting was in the Abraham Lincoln Room, which is one floor down from where we usually have our traditional dinner in the Savoy, as we will have tonight. The occasion was born by the rejection of the Savoy to roll the full paid deposit over to the next year due to the Covid restrictions. The Savoy finally agreed to roll 50% over and use the other 50% to pay for the dinner. This gesture was much appreciated and so was the evening. The Salvage and Wreck Conference was held on 1 and 2 December 2021. I was able attend this conference which conveniently coincided with our informal dinner on 1 December. The AAA was a supporting association for this event and had been provided with a complimentary pass. The two day conference covered the future of LOF contracts, salvage and wreck removal in US waters, revision of BIMCO’s wreck removal contracts and corporate social responsibility. February 2022, the UK Chamber of Shipping dinner. Tristan Miller attended this dinner which was held in the company of 760 guests at Grosvenor House. Decarbonisation of shipping played a key role in the President’s address, with a special focus on building green ships by, ultimately, 2030, because these ships will 6
Annual Report 2022
still be around by the time we reach the net zero target of 2050. The Minister of Shipping acknowledged the decarbonisation challenge and remarked that the UK has a wonderful opportunity to step into high tech ship building post Brexit and cut red tape. On 22 and 23 of March 2022 we had the ISU dinner and Associates Day. Burkhard Fischer and Rui Hao attended the events. The topics covered included the potential closure of the Lloyd’s Salvage Branch. Kevin Clarke and David Lawrence were speaking and confirmed that the LSB was there to stay. We finally get to this picture, which was taken at the IUA/ AAA hybrid seminar on 24 March. This joint hybrid seminar on practical aspects of collision claims was held at the Cavendish Conference Centre, London, with 51 attendees in person and 65 attendees via the virtual platform. It was the first hybrid presentation by the AAA, which appears now to be the norm since the Covid pandemic. Due to the pandemic this seminar was postponed twice, in 2020 and 2021. Guest speakers were Alistair Johnston, CJC Law and Chris Zavos, Kennedys, with myself acting as moderator of this event. The seminar outlined the principles of collisions and liability, apportionment, forum shopping, limitation, security, insurance, quantum and single and cross liabilities. After the seminar a buffet lunch was served to the attendees.
Michiel Starmans with Alistair Johnston, CJC Law and Chris Zavos , Kennedys
The last thing that still stands in planning is the Young CMI/AAA Associates hybrid seminar which is planned for August 2022. Amy O’Neill and myself will organise and represent the AAA with one or two Associates as speakers, so any volunteers please go to Amy. The likely subject will be war risk related and a flier will be sent out shortly. We hope to organise it in Rotterdam and if possible combine it with a ship visit on one of the vessels operated by the Spliethoff Group. Website Work has continued over the last year in updating and changing various parts of the website. Robert Tomlinson has updated legal cases from 2000. The Rules of Practice revised in 2020, which were previously only available to logged-in members, have been moved to a section of the website easily accessible and available to the general public. The Committee of Management decided at the end of last year that the Association should consider a new website, as it was felt that it needed a fresh approach and to be more interactive in terms of online booking of events, exams, the annual dinner, etcetera. A sub committee was set up with Amy O’Neill taking the lead. It is expected that the new website will be up and running in June 2022. I have intentionally put the year and the month because in my own experience IT matters tend to take a long time, so I am very impressed with that. I would like to congratulate the team for getting this work done in a fairly limited period of time. 7
Annual Report 2022
Examinations Before I provide more details about exam results I would like to inform you that apart from David Pannell stepping down as Convenor, as already mentioned, Miles Duncan, John MacDonald, and Gerald Ewing will also step down this month as the three longest serving members of the Examining Committee. If present, may I ask you to stand so we can recognise and appreciate the contribution you have made to the Committee and our Association. (Applause) Thank you very much for all the good work that you have done over the years. And of course, it has already been decided who will be their successors. They will be Rui Hao, Heather Robinson and Joseph Shead. They are all here as well. Keith Martin will remain the Chief Examiner and take over David’s role as Convenor. He has already put his pencil on the drawing board for the future plans for the Examining Committee. David has volunteered to stay on as expert consultant. Ann Waite will be responsible for the logistics and administration of the exams. I would like to wish Keith and all members of the Committee all the best in continuing the good work for this important committee within our Association. Now we go to the exam results. We are putting up all the names here since 2019, because since our last inperson Annual General Meeting none of them has previously been acknowledged publicly. Associates are candidates who have passed Modules A1: the Marine Insurance Act and Principles of Insurance, and Module A2: hull and cargo claims. There were ten new Associates in 2019, 16 new Associates in 2020, and 2021 was a very successful year with 25 new Associates. All the pubs were closed, so presumably they had nothing else to do than study. You can see what happens when the pubs open again! Only five new Associates in March 2022. Can I ask the candidates present here today to stand up so they can receive a round of applause for their success. (Applause) 2019 Associates Nikos Michalakopoulos (Margetis Marine, Athens) Sameen Naveed (Chubb Insurance Australia, Sydney) Nishi Patel (RHL, London) Georgia Simiakaki (VC Marne Claims Adjusters, Piraeus) Stella Rizioti (Guardian Maritime, Athens) Nicole Skiadas (Stewart & Hazell Marine, Athens) Tan Si Hua (RHL, Singapore) Christ Dandhie (Radita Hutama Internusa, Jakarta) Raihan Ramadhillah (MCO Prima Indonesia, Jakarta) Kang Byeol Cheol (Korea Shipping Assoc, Seoul) 2020 Associates Max Barker (RHL, London) Giorgio Cavallo (RHL, London and Studio Dott Giorgio Cavallo, Genoa) Albana Bibaj (Siat, Genoa) Tomaso Roncallo (Siat, Genoa) Laura Rocca (Studio Tecnico Lonoce, Genoa) 8
Annual Report 2022
2020 Associates (continued) Molli Stanton (RHL, Liverpool) (Evelyn) Ho Lai Fun (Aon, Singapore) Arnold Van Hal (Van Traa Advocaten, Rotterdam) Iris Regtien (Smallegange Nv, Rotterdam) (Brian) Chen Yi San (Survey Association, Copenhagen/Singapore) Donal Keaney (Ince & Co, London) Clare Birchenhough (Ince & Co, London) William Smyth (Axa XL, London) Shamim Ahmed (Holbud Ship Management, London) Phoichau Dang (Aon, London) Swapnodeep Mondal (Anglo-eastern Ship Management, Hong Kong) 2021 Associates Alice Duncan (RHL, Liverpool) Alberto Comitardi (Thomas Miller, London) Mark Revis (London International Average Adjusters China) M Khairul Nizham (Edge Insurance Brokers, Singapore) Niamh McKeown (RHL, Liverpool) Jonathan Warriner (RHL, Liverpool) Efi Saisana-Palyvou (The Swedish Club, Piraeus) Georgia Exadaktylou (Fassolis Law Firm, Athens) Vasiliki Chiampas (Seascope Hellas, Piraeus) Dimitrios Tsekos (VC Adjusters, Piraeus) Stavriani Christea (Roxana Shipping, Athens) Anuradha Prasad More (United India Insce Co, Haridwar) Yuno Sakai (Charles Taylor Japan, Tokyo) (Rocky) Lok Kan Siu (Hong Kong Pilots Assoc, Hong Kong) (Tiffany) Zhang Xinming (Cosco Shipping Co, Hong Kong) Ingrid Svensson (The Swedish Club, Gothenburg) Joel Lloyd Pinheiro (Quest Marine Llc, Dubai) Abhishek Pathak (Cargo Surveyor, Kolkata) Neil Best (Aqualis Braemar LOC, Singapore) (Julia) Zhu Zizhen (Skuld Far East, Hong Kong) (Cory) Chow Yuk Yi (Charles Taylor Adjusting, Hong Kong) (Jenny) Chu Wing Yin (Asia Maritime Pacific, Hong Kong) (Yvonne) Yi Liu (Charles Taylor Adjusting, Beijing) (Horace) Huang Zhanghao (RHL, Shanghai) (Stephanie) Wang Chia Sheng (Overseas Adjusters & Surveyors, Taipei) 2022 Associates Sean Haake (RHL, Liverpool) Dave Barnard (Reed Smith, London) Anthony Ashurst (RHL London) Evanthia Anastasiadis (RHL Hellas, Greece) Maged Abdel Naby (Mecon, Alexandria) 9
Annual Report 2022
Each year the Association awards a prize of merit to the candidate outstanding in their achievement of associateship. This year the award has been given to Jenny Chu Wing Yin from Asia Maritime Pacific (Hong Kong) Ltd. I do not think she is here. However, we have Georgio Cavallo here, and I would like to ask him to come up so he can receive his certificate for outstanding performance in 2020. (Applause)
Georgio Cavallo with David Pannell
Senior Associates are Associates who have passed Module F1: GA salvage and COGSA, plus one Module of either F2: hull & machinery, loss of hire, war risk, cargo, or Module F3: collisions, recoveries, freight. As with the Associates, we would also like to acknowledge publicly those who achieved their senior associateship during the pandemic years. In 2020, we had two Senior Associates. James Willan (RHL, Liverpool) (Jimmy) Hung-Yi Chen (Overseas Adjusters & Surveyors, Taipei) James is here, and we will mention him again shortly. If Jimmy is here, can I ask him to come forward. Jimmy is not here. In 2021, there were three new Senior Associates. Phillip McCabe (RHL, Liverpool) Christian Freuling (RHL Hellas, Greece) Julia Roumanou (Independent Average Adjusters, Piraeus) Phillip is here and we will mention him again shortly. If Christian and Julia are here, can I ask them please to come forward? They are not here either. We have the March 2022 results, Senior Associates, two of them. Jack Ellis (Willis Towers Watson, London) Ayodeji Sasegbon (Campbell Johnston Clark, London) Could I ask Jack and Ayodeji to come up and receive their certificates. (Applause) At least it is not a brown envelope. Thank you. Congratulations. 10
Annual Report 2022
2022 exam success From left: Jack Ellis (Senior Associate), John Thompson (Fellow), Phillip McCabe (Fellow), Deji Sasegbon (Senior Associate).
Fellows – they have to pass all the above modules, plus the practical exam, Module F4 as it is called now. During the pandemic, we had six new Fellows. In 2020 Nanami Hara and Rui Hao. 2021, Ryoko Shimura and James Willan. 2022, John Thompson and Phillip McCabe. Can I please ask all of you to come forward to receive your certificates and your badge. (Applause)
From left: Rui Hao (Fellow 2020), James Willan (Fellow 2021), John Thompson (Fellow 2022), Phillip McCabe (Fellow 2022), and in front Nanami Hara (Fellow 2020).
Membership As you can see, the membership has remained about the same. We are two down. Just to give some additional information, unfortunately we lost BIMCO as an affiliate which did not want to extend, but of course, we still have ISU, the BMLA and the UK Chamber of Shipping, and we appreciate that this continues to be of mutual benefit. The shift in number of Associates is due to a reshuffle of the numbers, so it looks worrying when you look at the apparent decline of UK based associates, but this has been compensated entirely when you look a little further down with the apparent increase of overseas associates. You can see the rest are mainly the same but of course we have two new Fellows there, making 44. 11
Annual Report 2022
Affiliates Associates Fellows Honorary Honorary Life Fellows Non-Practising Fellows Overseas Associates Overseas Subscribers Representatives Senior Associates UK Subscribers Total
2021 4 84 42 15 3 2 48 185 8 11 68 470
2022 3 43 44 15 4 2 107 163 8 11 68 468
In order to professionalise our membership, the Committee of Management decided that, with effect from 1 June membership year, we have new terms and conditions for membership and they will be applicable to new applicants who will need to agree to them when joining. The terms and conditions cover shorter timelines for payment of subscriptions and an admin fee for memberships that have been terminated when a member reapplies for membership. It happens that Associates just do not renew and then when the dinner is there they renew, which incurs administration costs. The second change outlines the standards of professional conduct expected of members . In the terms and conditions we clarified that titles can only be used on fully paid annual subscriptions. You cannot use your associateship title or senior associateship title if you are no longer contributing your fee. Confirmation of consent to the AAA’s privacy policy and the responsibility of members to comply with all international sanctions is now required. We of course cannot afford to have a member who is on a sanction list. The Advisory & Dispute Resolution Panel David Clancey and his team did not have any referrals during last year, but David has been active in placing the new Rules of Practice on the website, including the new rule B26 Vessel in Ballast and Under Charter: Contributing Interests. This is item 2 on the agenda and David will give a short presentation hereafter about this new rule and why the Association thought it was needed. The General Average Sub-Committee The GA Sub-Committee, chaired by Burkhard Fischer, continued to work on producing guidance notes following The Longchamp Supreme Court decision. The sub committee issued a list of 15 examples of substituted expenses and whether they can be allowed in General Average on a rule based on fairness. The document has been issued as official Opinion G24B and the original advisory committee Opinion is now renumbered as G24A. Hopefully, many of you have had an opportunity to review the guidance and appreciate the high level of expertise involved with this work. I would like to thank both Burkhard and David for everything they have done to make the contribution to this complex work. 12
Annual Report 2022
Since the GA Sub Committee has undertaken work as a Sub Committee of the Advisory Panel, David has volunteered to give some more background about the work and content of this new Advisory Committee Opinion under agenda item 2. This brings me to my last point and that is that I would like to thank those who have made my job easier and contributed to the smooth running of the Association throughout the Covid crisis. That is of course the officers and Committee members of the Association, the Fellows who have contributed to particular projects, the secretariat at Charles Taylor Insurance Services, in particular Sue Green with her team in Newcastle, Ann Waite, as the patient Secretary who knows how to make life easy for any Chairman, as she did for me and, hopefully, she will carry on doing this for many future Chairmen, and Burkhard Fischer as Vice Chairman who stepped in when it was needed in the two years of my chairmanship. Thank you very much. 2. NEW RULE OF PRACTICE B26 VESSEL IN BALLAST AND UNDER CHARTER: CONTRIBUTING INTERESTS. THE CHAIRMAN: Could I now invite David to say something on item 2 on the agenda? MR. DAVID CLANCEY: David Clancey, Convenor of the Advisory & Dispute Resolution Panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is the role of the panel to oversee the Association’s Rules of Practice. As we have not had an Annual Conference since 2019, it is my task to bring you up to date. After Richard Cornah had been elected Chairman in 2019, he decided it was time to review the Rules of Practice and where necessary brought them up to date. After he had done the initial review, the matter was passed to this panel and we carried out a detailed review of all the rules, with the exception of Rule B26, which proved to be a bit more of a problem than the remaining rules. For the most part, the changes were no more than bringing them in line with modern thinking and practice. To this we added two new rules, D9, covering temporary generator hire, and G10, liner vessels, which only stated the accepted approach to both of those items. The revised rules were passed as probationary at the AGM in May 2020 and formally adopted at the AGM in May 2021. During the 2021 year the panel set about revising Rule B26, as you can see repeated in your agenda, and on the screen. After considerable discussion, we came up with this wording. The main point at dispute was over the length of time the General Average runs and to what extent any sub voyage charter affects the length of the General Average. It was not felt that this should apply as the vessel is controlled by the time charterers throughout the whole period. Of course, when a time charter is also cancelled that brings an end to the General Average. In the May 2021 AGM this was voted on and obtained the required majority and was adopted as a probationary rule. At the AGM of Fellows yesterday the rule was again voted on and as a result has now been fully adopted and takes its place in our published Rules of Practice, which, as you have been advised, are all on the website. Our Chairman has already advised you of Burkhard Fischer’s hard work in producing an Opinion in regard to The Longchamp and its effect on General Average under Rule F. This of course is only a matter for English law as other countries will have to consider whether they wish to take the same view. I do not really think it is necessary to say a lot more about how this process is arrived at. It is clear that a lot of work is put into it and QC’s opinion was also obtained on the wording. I would like to thank Burkhard Fischer for his efforts and advise everybody that this is available again on the website and has been released to the market in general. Thank you. (Applause)
13
Annual Report 2022
3. The Chairman’s Address 2022 “General Average Back To The Future” A daunting task; those were the words of a colleague adjuster many years ago to describe the task of preparing and presenting a Chairman’s address. These were also the words that popped up in my mind, when our former Chairman Richard Cornah phoned me over two years ago to ask if I would consider becoming his successor, which implies preparing an address at the end of the term. As a non British and non practising Fellow, I needed some weeks to think this over and then said “yes” instead of “non”. So here is my address. Choosing a suitable subject for the address is the most difficult part of this task. I could have chosen the Covid 19 pandemic that affected our lives over the past two years. This would have involved a study of how marine insurers introduced new clauses into their policies to limit or exclude cover for pandemic related expenses and delays. Richard has already presented his address on Covid 19 and the impact on Hull claims and General Average in 2020. I did not want to step into his footsteps and I think that we are all fed up with Covid 19 by now. Another subject that came to mind could have been the brutal Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the evolving consequences this has on human suffering and the war risk insurance market. Which person that witnessed the Berlin wall coming down in 1989 would have thought that the Cold War between East and West with threats of the use of nuclear weapons would be back on the agenda again in 2022. As to the war risk insurance, the premiums have rocketed up to 7% of the vessel’s insured value per 7 days for vessels in Ukrainian waters. This implies that Owners could pay the equivalent of the value of the vessel on war risk insurance premium in only 15 weeks. I do hope that owners have the correct War Risks clauses in their charterparties, which entitles them to get reimbursed by charterers for these additional war risk premiums. I thought it is too early to choose this topic for an address. In times of pandemic and war, people usually turn to safe investments like gold and silver. The same logic applies to adjusters, who turn to their safe haven called General Average (GA hereafter). So this will be the subject of my address but unlike usual references to GA presented as an ancient maritime principle going back to Rhodian law, I will focus on the future of GA. We will not go back to the past, but back to the future. The largest part of my address deals with the biggest challenge of mankind in the next 25 years, which is combatting climate change. New legislation is being introduced to put a cap on CO2 emissions in shipping and such emissions will no longer be free of charge. Can the new carbon levies consequent on a GA act be allowed in General Average? Before we hop on the DeLorean car with Michael J. Fox for our Back to the Future GA experience resulting from the proposed legislation, I will briefly discuss two recent Supreme Court cases where GA played a crucial role. It is very rare that GA cases reach the Supreme Court, so it therefore deserves attention in my address. The Longchamp (2017) Surprise, surprise, The Longchamp! This case has already been the subject of the address by Lord Clarke back in 2019. The issue of this case was whether the daily vessel operating expenses of shipowners incurred while they were negotiating to reduce the ransom demand of pirates could be allowed in GA. 14
Annual Report 2022
The Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of Rule F differently than the long standing adjusting practice. It was held that where GA is adjusted according to the York Antwerp Rules 1974, the exclusion in Rule C of loss sustained through delay has no application to substituted expenses under Rule F. Do not worry, I do not want to repeat each fact and ruling of this important judgment. I would only like to revert here to the explicit reasoning of the Supreme Court by which a long-standing practice of adjusters was set aside. Lord Neuberger, held that the “alternative course of action” practice as applied by adjusters was unsustainable. This action implied that a claimant should not only prove that the substituted expenses incurred are lower than the avoided expenses allowable in GA but must also be of a different nature than the avoided expenses. According to Lord Neuberger, the words of clause F “extra expenses incurred in place of” do not support the conclusion that Rule F can only be invoked when the claimant has taken an “alternative course of action”. The negotiation period expenses represent the extra expenses incurred in place of the difference between the original and the accepted ransom sum and is allowed under Rule F. In Lord Neuberger’s words within paragraph 25: “Experience shows that in many areas of practical and professional endeavour generally accepted points of principle and practice, when tested in court, sometimes turn out to be unsustainable. I accept that it may be right for a court to have regard to practices which have developed and principles which have been adopted by practitioners, but they cannot determine the outcome when the issue is ultimately one of law.” Lord Neuberger continued in paragraph 29: “Given that the Rules represent an international arrangement, it is particularly inappropriate to adopt an approach to their interpretation which involves reading in any words or qualification. As already mentioned, it appears to me that, as a matter of ordinary language, Rule F applies to the negotiation period expenses for the reasons given in para 26 above. To imply some qualification such as the requirement that those expenses must have been incurred so as to achieve an ‘alternative course of action’ appears to me to be very dangerous. In the same way as an international convention or treaty, the Rules should be interpreted by a United Kingdom court ‘unconstrained by technical rules of English law, or by English legal precedent, but on broad principles of general acceptation’.” Lord Sumption confirmed these words in paragraphs 41 and 42 as follows: “The York Antwerp Rules ... are designed to create a body of principle applicable internationally in a uniform way, although incorporated in shipping agreements of different kinds, governed by different laws. It will therefore rarely if ever be appropriate to imply matter into them which is not apparent from the natural meaning of the words, unless the implication is necessary to make them workable or intelligible or to avoid absurdity. Rule F is simplicity itself. In the absence of a comprehensive body of case law ... adjusters have adopted a variety of practices or rules of thumb to supplement the Rules. This is perhaps inevitable, but such practices are not law and there is a tendency in this field for them to lose sight of the basic concepts expressed in the Rules themselves.” Guidance by the Supreme Court The guidance given by the Supreme Court to the adjusting community for the future interpretation of the York Antwerp Rules is to apply the natural meaning of the words used in the York Antwerp Rules and only supplement the Rules by practices or rules of thumb, if necessary to avoid absurdity. 15
Annual Report 2022
The law cannot be determined by reference to adjusting practices. Although this principle is correct, it ignores the fact that new law is sometimes born out of accepted practices, which filled the gap where the law was silent. Rule F of the York Antwerp Rules came to the drawing table of the drafters of the York Antwerp Rules 1924 after the case of Wilson v Bank of Victoria (1867), where it was held that the principle of substituted expenses was not tenable at law and where Blackburn J held: ‘If in any particular trade it has been found convenient to act on this principle, and that has been done to such an extent as to create a custom... the case would be different’.” In the Wilson case, the judge called upon practitioners to establish a customary practice for allowing substituted expenses in GA, whereas in The Longchamp case the customary practice of interpreting Rule F was found to be unsustainable. Both Lords held that because of the international nature of the York Antwerp Rules, they should be interpreted in an uniform way and on principles of general acceptation. It is not entirely clear what international and uniform interpretation both Lords had in mind, because the York Antwerp Rules themselves are drawn up by a very international maritime community. The Comité Maritime International (CMI) are the custodians of the York Antwerp Rules and represent the view of the Maritime Law Associations of many maritime nations in the world. Just like the Association of Average Adjusters, its object is to promote the unification of maritime law and practice. Other York Antwerp Rules stakeholders are IUMI, BIMCO and ICS, which have all expressed the view that GA should not be extended by the allowance of indirect expenses via the back door of Rule F. The High Court decision in The Longchamp was discussed during the drafting of the York Antwerp Rules 2016 and it was then decided not to interfere with this ruling until the case was finally decided in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This judgment might therefore have a corrective impact on the future drafting of the York Antwerp Rules, like the “Makis” (1929) case did for the Rule of Interpretation and the “Alpha” (1991) case for the Rule Paramount in the York Antwerp Rules. I do not believe that there is another maritime professional other than an average adjuster, who interprets the York Antwerp Rules on a daily basis. Both AAA and Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs (AMD) have been asked for input by CMI, whenever the York Antwerp Rules are under review for possible alterations. Both Associations have assisted the CMI in preparing the CMI Guidelines relating to GA and in particular to the last York Antwerp Rules 2016 edition. The CMI has recently set up a Standing Committee to agree a default wording for the GA Guarantee and Average Bond. Adjusters of both AAA and AMD are active members on this Standing Committee. Lord Sumption’s remark that adjusting practices have a tendency to lose sight of the basic concepts expressed in the York Antwerp Rules seems to be therefore somewhat unjustified. Unfortunately, no further guidance was given by Lord Sumption what those basic concepts are apart from interpreting the natural meaning of the words in the York Antwerp Rules. Guidance by the AAA Guidance by the AAA has been given to maintain uniform practice in adjusting GA claims under Rule F. A list of 15 examples of additional expenses has been drawn up with a recommendation whether to allow such expenses under Rule F or not, based on fairness. The list has been prepared by the GA Sub Committee under the wings of the Advisory Committee of the AAA and included in Opinion G24b dated January 2022. 16
Annual Report 2022
The CMA CGM Libra (2021) The second case that I would like to say something about is CMA CGM Libra. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions that a defective passage plan may render a vessel unseaworthy. This was the first case in 60 years where the Supreme Court had to give a ruling on the extent of an owner’s obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel under the Hague Rules, which is relevant for GA cases and cargo damages in general. In May 2011, whilst leaving Xiamen, the CMA CGM Libra grounded outside the buoyed fairway. According to the passage plan, the vessel was never meant to leave the buoyed fairway, but the master still left the dredged fairway resulting in the grounding of the vessel. The vessel was refloated by salvors and owners declared GA and claimed a sum of USD 13mln in GA. A minority of cargo interests refused to pay their GA contribution, because owners had committed an actionable fault resulting in the grounding by failing to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy at commencement of the voyage. The master and officers made two errors. They did not follow the IMO Guidelines for Voyage Planning, which required the notification in the chart of the presence of numerous depths less than those charted outside the fairway as per the Notice to Mariners. This made the passage plan defective. The second error was made when the vessel left the planned route and navigated outside the fairway, resulting in the grounding. Owners were found liable for the first error happening prior to commencement of the voyage (Article III Hague Rules) and could not exclude liability for the second error in navigation during the voyage (Article IV Hague Rules). Although the preparation of the passage plan concerned a matter of navigation, the nautical fault exception could not be relied on, where the Owners had breached the vessel’s seaworthiness obligation. Owners were of the opinion that, provided a carrier has equipped the vessel with all necessary and workable equipment for her safe navigation, including charts and a competent crew with experience and training how to prepare a passage plan, the crew’s subsequent failure to safely navigate the ship did not affect vessel’s seaworthiness at commencement of the voyage as per Article III and owners could rely on the nautical fault defence of Article IV HR. Considering that 92% of cargo interests paid their GA contributions without objections, this was also the opinion of the vast majority of the cargo interests. It was the first time that the Supreme Court ruled that a defective passage plan, which was causative to the grounding, made the vessel unseaworthy. It was based on the established principle that owners have a non delegable obligation to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy before and at the beginning of the voyage. The defective passage planning of the crew fell within the responsibility of owners. Owners will have to make sure that the crew not only knows how but has actually prepared a sound passage plan as per the IMO Guidelines before commencement of the voyage. This case might have of course a bigger impact on shipowners than adjusters. Adjusters still have to prepare the adjustment as per the contractual York Antwerp Rules and the only consequence could be that cargo’s contribution to the adjusted GA will be recovered from the P&I Club, as must have happened in this case. This concerns the post adjustment stage. Shipowners will have to get to grips that seaworthiness requires more than making the vessel physically fit in respect of her hull, machinery and equipment, man her with a competent crew and make her cargo worthy at commencement of the voyage. The article IV HVR defences which could involve crew negligence, like the error in navigation or management of the vessel and fire can then not always be relied on. Cargo interests still have to establish in court that the crew error caused the accident. In this case, the master presented this evidence on a silver plate, when he confessed that he would not have deviated from the buoyed fairway, if the Notice to Mariners with warnings of uncharted depths outside the fairway had been included in the chart. 17
Annual Report 2022
On a personal note, with my shipowner’s cap on, I find this decision somewhat harsh to digest based on the facts, because the intended route via the buoyed fairway was correctly planned and plotted in the chart and did not include any dangers to navigation. Had the plotted route included an insufficient depth for vessel’s draft or even a depth less than the charted depth on which the vessel grounded, then I would follow the court’s reasoning that this was a defective passage plan resulting in the vessel’s grounding However, the dangers to navigation existed outside the planned route and were not detailed on the chart. The Notice to Mariners which was missed contained the following general warning: “Numerous depths less than the charted exist within and in the approaches to Xiamen Gang”. The Notice did not include any specific locations to be avoided. It was just a general warning, which could be interpreted that even within the buoyed fairway it was not safe for navigation. The grounding happened during the subsequent negligent execution of the voyage plan, where the master, for unknown reasons, decided to deviate from the intended route and then grounded outside the fairway. Had the vessel remained on the intended route as specified in the passage plan, which was signed off by the master himself, the vessel would likely not have grounded. The IMO Guidelines for Voyage Planning also require under para 4.1 that the voyage should be executed in accordance with the plan. Was this unjustified deviation from the route in the passage plan not a new act of negligence by the master during the voyage in not following the IMO Guidelines which led to the grounding? I am sure that my successor Sir Nigel Teare does not agree, since he was the judge at the High Court, whose decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court. I hope this does not put you off being the next Chairman, Sir Nigel. I am not speaking on behalf of the adjusters, but as a shipowner. Now we get to the main part of my address and that is the Paris Agreement in 2015. Mr. Trump did not agree with it, but he is no longer in office. Paris Agreement 2015 The Paris Climate Agreement is the United Nations framework convention on climate change. It aims to substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, while pursuing the means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. The nearly 200 countries who have endorsed the Paris Agreement must report their greenhouse gas inventories and progress relative to their targets. Countries are also expected to put forward progressively stronger targets every five years, with the goal of further driving down emissions. The European Union has been at the forefront of international efforts to fight climate change. In December 2020, the EU submitted its updated target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 from 1990 levels. Decarbonisation in shipping The International Maritime Organisation has adopted measures that require ships to combine a technical and an operational approach to reduce their carbon output. These will enter into force by 2023 and will be reviewed in 2026. The energy efficiency index (EEXI) is a technical index which establishes a vessel’s energy efficiency from its design. The vessel can improve its efficiency through technical modifications to the engine, bow or propeller and/or installing energy efficient technology. The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) establishes the operational carbon intensity of the vessel by either measuring the vessel’s annual carbon emissions on the basis of its deadweight or on the cargo being carried. The IMO will categorise vessels into an A, B, C, D or E rating, with A being the best rating. Vessels with a D rating for three consecutive years and E rating for one year must submit a corrective action plan to improve their performance. 18
Annual Report 2022
Future steps include a possible levy of USD 100 per ton CO2 emitted in order to promote the uptake of alternative fuels and the potential establishment of an International Maritime Research Board which will be funded by a mandatory R&D contribution of USD 2 per ton fuel oil consumed to fund and accelerate R&D of low and zero carbon technologies. The IMO aims to reduce carbon intensity to 11% by 2026, which leaves a considerable gap between 2026 and 2030 to reach an overall reduction of 40%. The impact of the EU regulations with a 55% reduction by 2030 is more ambitious and I will focus in my Address on the EU Commission’s proposal of 14 July 2021 to extend the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) to shipping. This proposal is still under review by the European Parliament and requires approval by each EU member state, so it is subject to change. For the hard Brexiteers here who think, “I can now nod off”, no, the UK has established its own emission trading scheme which is similar to the ETS. The EU Fit for 55 package The EU has set an ultimate target of zero emissions by 2050. As an intermediate step towards this climate neutrality, it has set a 55% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2030. This package targets shipping as follows and I will only study the first item hereafter: 1) Emissions Trading System for shipping as from 2023 2) Tax on bunkers as from 2023 3) Fuel EU Maritime Initiative to promote low carbon fuels as from 2026. The European Union Emission Trading System (ETS) It was launched in 2005, and it compels manufacturers, power companies and airlines to buy permits to cover each tonne of CO2 emission. The ETS is the largest multi country, multi sector greenhouse gas emissions trading system in the world. It applies not only to EU member states, but also to Norway and Iceland (and the UK prior to Brexit). The ETS works on a ‘cap and trade’ basis, so there is a ‘cap’ or limit set on the total greenhouse gas emissions allowed by all participants covered by the system and this cap is converted into tradable emission permits. The cap is reduced each year, so that total emissions fall in line with the EU objectives. One permit gives the holder the right to emit 1 ton of CO2. Participants covered by the ETS must monitor and report their emissions each year and surrender enough permits to cover their annual emissions. Participants who are likely to emit more than their allocation have a choice between taking measures to reduce their emissions or buying additional permits. The European Commission has proposed to add ships over 5,000 GT to the ETS system as from 2023, whereby the shipping company would need to buy carbon permits covering 100% of the emissions from voyages inside the EU and 50% of the emissions from international voyages starting or ending in the EU. The shipping company is the entity that is responsible for the choice of fuel, route and speed of the vessel. This will likely be the shipowner under a voyage charter and time charterer under a time charter. The ultimate goal is that the maritime industry will invest in energy efficiency measures and switch to cleaner fuels with less emissions. If the shipping company (shipowner or charterer it is not clear) does not surrender the right number of permits by April 30 of the following year, it will be fined 100 euro per ton of CO2 not accounted for. Ships can be denied entry to EU ports where the responsible shipping company has failed to surrender the necessary permits for two consecutive years. 19
Annual Report 2022
If the vessel’s flag is an EU member state, that will be the administering authority for the distribution of permits and fines. For non EU vessels, this will likely be the member state where the vessel had the highest number of port calls in the previous two years. Legal basis of ETS What is the legal basis of ETS? The legal basis of the ETS system can be found in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which sets out the EU policy on the environment: 1. Contribute to pursuit of the following objectives: • preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, • protecting human health, • promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change. 2. Based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay. Carbon permits in GA The relevance for adjusters of these future carbon levies (the ETS permit/fine or the IMO levy of US$ 100 per ton CO2 ) as direct consequence of fuel consumed could arise when a vessel is removed for repairs under Rule of Practice D1 or when GA allowances are made for fuel consumed during deviation to and detention at a port of refuge until regaining position on course under the applicable York Antwerp Rules and I will only focus on the GA scenario hereafter. The EU tax on fuel will be a direct charge on the price of fuel and I do not foresee any problems in allowing the gross fuel price, including this EU tax, where we now allow the net fuel price under the York Antwerp Rules. More problematic would be the ETS carbon permits. Let’s assume that a vessel consumes a quantity of 100 tonnes bunkers during a deviation to a European port of refuge, detention there to carry out repairs to the vessel for the safe prosecution of the voyage and whilst regaining position on course. The bunker consumption during this GA deviation/detention would produce about 250 tons CO2 depending on the type of fuel (and carbon content) consumed. Such emission was always free of charge and did not need to be compensated by the shipping company, but this free ride is about to end as from 1 January 2023. The EU carbon price of CO2 fluctuates daily and the price at the beginning of this year was about €80 per ton. Above deviation would then necessitate the purchase of 250 carbon permits @ €80 = €20,000 to compensate for the CO2 emission arising from this deviation and detention at the port of refuge. This ETS system for shipping will be introduced under a sliding scale as follows: 2023 - 20% x € 20,000 = € 4,000; 2024 - 45% x € 20,000 = € 9,000; 2025 - 70% x € 20,000 = € 14,000; 2026 - 100% = € 20,000 will have to be paid by the shipping company to the EU member state. Can the shipowner (or time charterer) recover these additional costs in GA as a direct consequence of fuel consumed and allowed in GA? Rule C York-Antwerp Rules Rule C of the York Antwerp Rules stipulates that any losses, damages or expenses which are the direct consequence of the GA act shall be allowed in GA, but this allowance does not include “losses, damages 20
Annual Report 2022
or expenses incurred in respect of damage to the environment or in consequence of the escape or release of pollutant substances from the property involved in the common maritime adventure”. The exclusion was introduced as from the 1994 York Antwerp Rules. The principle to exclude pollution liabilities but allow costs of preventing pollution was adopted at the CMI Sydney Conference in October 1994. The exclusion was laid down in Rule C and the costs of preventing and minimising pollution were included as allowances under Rule VI and XI(d). Damage to the environment Reference to the words “damage to the environment” can be found in above legal basis of ETS and Rule C, VI(a) and XI(d) of the York Antwerp Rules as from 1994. These words are not defined in any of these rules, but Rule VI(a) makes reference to article 13 of the International Convention on Salvage 1989, which includes a definition of “damage to the environment” as follows: “substantial physical damage to human health or to marine life or resources in coastal or inland waters or areas adjacent thereto, caused by pollution, contamination, fire, explosion or similar major incidents”. Human health The global average atmospheric CO2 is currently around 415 parts per million, which is 13% higher than the level in 2000. It is now as high as it was 3 million years ago, when temperatures were 2 to 3 degrees higher than during the pre industrial era and the sea level was 15 to 25 metres higher than today. For a Dutchman, that looks like a continued challenge in the historical battle against the sea. My house lies two metres below sea level, like 25% of the rest of the Netherlands, including Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague. This battle will eventually be lost if the sea rises to these levels. In the long term this increase of sea levels would have a devastating effect on human health especially in the low lying countries in the world. However, the relevant question for the above definition (damage to the environment) is whether CO2 levels of 415 ppm in the atmosphere can cause substantial physical damage to human health? Evidence suggests that elevations of CO2 may pose direct risks for human health, but these studies have mainly focused on indoor air concentrations at 1,000 ppm, but not on atmospheric air concentrations. The answer to the question appears to be negative. Marine life Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have a negative effect on marine life, since it reduces the PH value of sea water, which causes acidification of the oceans. This is a very slow process when CO2 is dissolved in the seawater. Although this effect should not be ignored, it does not in my opinion activate the above “damage to the environment” definition, which implicates that the damage must be caused by a sudden major incident, which is different from the mid to long term deterioration of the environment by CO2 emissions. The definition also limits the impact to coastal or inland waters, which is different to the global impact arising from CO2 emissions. The reference to “damage to the environment” in Rule C does therefore not appear to exclude carbon levies in GA. Pollutant substances Could such carbon levies still be caught by the second exclusion of Rule C: the escape or release of pollutant substances from the ship? The word “escape” implies an accidental emission, which is not the case with CO2 21
Annual Report 2022
emissions which are more like a constant emission, but the word “release” seems to be more in line with the constant emission of CO2, so we are not yet high and dry. What is considered pollutant substances from the ship in international maritime legislation? MARPOL The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. Over the decades, various regulations have been issued dealing with oil pollution (Annex I 1983), noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II 1983), harmful substances in packaged form (Annex III 1992), sewage (Annex IV 2003), garbage (Annex V 1988) and air pollution (Annex VI 2005). Annex VI sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and prohibits ozone depleting substances. Regulation 2 of Annex VI stipulates that the word emission means any release of substances from ships into the atmosphere or sea. However, Resolution 8 to Annex VI confirms that CO2 emissions, being greenhouse gases, have an adverse effect on the environment, but that Annex VI does not address CO2 emissions from ships. In other words, the release of CO2 has an adverse effect on the environment but is not considered an air pollutant substance under Annex VI MARPOL. The carbon levies under ETS or IMO would in my opinion therefore neither be caught by the Rule C exclusion “release of pollutant substances from the ship”. Bunkers allowed in GA Now that Rule C does not appear to exclude the carbon levies as direct consequence of bunkers consumed during a deviation and detention at/to a port of refuge, let’s have a look at the numbered Rules of the York Antwerp Rules, where the costs of replacing bunkers are allowed in GA. I am aware that I am doing it in the wrong order because an adjuster should first look at the numbered Rules before the lettered Rules in line with the Rule of Interpretation, but the end result is the same for the purpose of my address. Rule XI(a) York Antwerp Rules Fuel and stores consumed during the prolongation of the voyage occasioned by a ship entering a port or place of refuge shall be admitted as GA, when the expenses of entering such port or place are allowable in GA per Rule X(a). Rule X(a) allows the expenses of entering a port of place of refuge in consequence of accident, sacrifice or other extraordinary circumstances in GA, when this is necessary for the common safety. Rule XI(b) York Antwerp Rules Fuel and stores consumed during the extra period of detention (in such port or place until the ship shall or should have been made ready to proceed upon her voyage) shall be admitted as GA, except such fuel and stores as are consumed solely by reason of repairs not allowable in GA. Rule XI(d), measures to prevent or minimise damage to the environment Now that we know that bunkers are allowable in GA per Rule XI (a) and (b) and that Rule C does not appear to block carbon levies as a direct consequence of the GA act, could Rule XI(d) still be the last hurdle to exclude or limit such allowances in GA? This sub Rule is the mirror of Rule C for the changes proposed and accepted at the CMI Sydney Conference 1994. It allows the costs of measures undertaken to prevent or minimise damage to the environment in GA: “As a condition of remaining at any port or place in the circumstances prescribed in Rule X(b) provided that when there is an actual escape or release of pollutant substances the 22
Annual Report 2022
cost of any additional measures required on that account to prevent or minimise pollution or environmental damage shall not be allowed as General Average.” Although the intention of Rule XI(d) is to clearly limit GA allowances arising from measures undertaken to prevent or minimise damage to the environment, we must by reference to the above deliberations conclude that these limitations do not apply to carbon levies in GA. The CO2 emissions do by definition not cause damage to the environment, so the resulting carbon levies are not caught by the limiting provisions of Rule XI(d), which only deals which measures preventing or minimising damage to the environment. Conclusion Based on cross references of existing and future maritime legislation, I am of the opinion that carbon levies under ETS and IMO can be allowed in GA as a direct consequence of bunkers consumed and allowed in GA. I realise that my conclusion might be interpreted by some of you as an opportunistic attempt to increase GA allowances in the future by interpreting the wording used in the York Antwerp Rules and maritime conventions in a natural meaning, when the intention might be wider. I hope those people will find comfort by the lessons learned from the Supreme Court in The Longchamp case, where Lord Sumption instructed the adjusters’ community that it will rarely if ever be appropriate for adjusters to imply matter into the York Antwerp Rules which is not apparent from the natural meaning of the words. Or where Lord Neuberger stated that it would be “particularly difficult to justify the notion that a specific allowance in a numbered rule should impliedly rule out such an allowance in a lettered rule”. Or in the reverse, that it would be difficult to justify that a specific disallowance in a numbered rule should exclude a general allowance under a lettered rule. I hope this last topic was an awareness exercise of what levies and charges the shipping industry will face in the global battle against climate change. Considering that the climate costs will rise year on year due to the lowering of the emission cap, in combination with the rising costs of purchasing carbon levies, it is not unforeseeable that these levies might eventually exceed the costs of bunkers for vessels who have not switched to alternative low carbon fuels. I hope my address might at best be a starting point for an Opinion of the Advisory Committee of the AAA in the future, after the EU and IMO legislation has been finalised and adjusters will be faced for the first time with these emission levies. Thank you very much for your attention. (Applause) THE SECRETARY: Thank you, Michiel, for delivering your address on such important issues. Before I take questions and comments from the floor, Michiel, do I have your permission to publish your address on the website? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. THE SECRETARY: I now invite any questions or comments. I have a microphone here. Could I ask you to state your name and Association if relevant if you have anything to say. Would anyone like to say anything? Any comments? MR. JOERN GRONINGER (Verein Deutscher Dispacheure ) I am here as the President of the German Association of Average Adjusters. I want to thank you, Michiel, for this address. It was very interesting indeed. Your remarks about the CMA CGM LIBRA (easier in French I would agree) reminded me of a case we dealt with long, long ago. It was an approach in Finland where the port approach was a channel going in a zigzag between the islands and somebody on the vessel decided to rather take an alternative route which came to a halt when they hit a lighthouse, which I am sure was properly marked on the chart. This was not a GA case. At least it was a case where, in the end, the pilot was found to be guilty, and the state had to pay 23
Annual Report 2022
damage liabilities. Yes, apart from this anecdotal reference, I would like to thank you for the address again which certainly did bring some light, at least for me, into what we have to expect in the future. And also to thank you for the brilliant evening we spent yesterday. It was really a pleasure to not only have your company but that of the other distinguished guests as well. Thank you. (Applause) MS. MELIS OTMAR (Associate of the AAA): A humble broker. Do you think in future not being green enough as a vessel could deem it unseaworthy with the current legislation going onwards? In a case such as yours, could the cargo use it as an excuse not to pay the GA saying that the vessel was not green enough hence these expenses could not be part of the GA? THE CHAIRMAN: That is an interesting question. The charterers and the shipowners will of course negotiate higher freight rates to comply fully with these green technologies. If charterers are not prepared to pay the higher freight rates, they could contract with vessels without these technologies and pay the emission allowances on top. It is not yet mandatory to do all this additional work to make ships greener. The shipowner should not be penalised for not doing it. Good question. THE SECRETARY: Anyone else? MR. JOE GRASSO (Chairman of the Association of Average Adjusters of the United States and Canada): I would like to congratulate you on your tenure and on your excellent address. Certainly, it has given us food for thought on the very important topic of climate change and the environment. I, too, would like to thank you for a wonderful evening last night at the Restaurant of Fools, or as we might say in the United States the Nut House, including the bottomless glasses of wine of course. Finally, I would like to congratulate Sir Nigel on his election as Chairman and look forward to continuing our discussion about US Supreme Court jurisprudence, hopefully, on topics of maritime and General Average rather than more boring subjects. Thank you. (Applause) MS. BARBARA HOLLAND (President of the United States Maritime Law Association): I bring you greetings from the MLA. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your hospitality last night. Thank you for your comments this morning. They were very insightful comments on recoverability, particularly of the ETS costs in GA. Very interesting. I have to tell you I particularly enjoy the image of you and Michael J Fox in the DeLorean Back to the Future. Thank you. Sir Nigel, again congratulations, and congratulations on your tenure, Mr. Chairman. (Applause) MR. STEFANO CAVALLO (President Associazione Liquidatori Avarie Marittime): I wish to congratulate you for your very interesting and stimulating address today and also wish to thank you for the kind invitation yesterday to dinner. The Manicomio restaurant in Chelsea, it was a very nice evening. It was great food great hospitality and a very friendly and relaxed atmosphere. Thank you very much. As President of the Italian Association, I have also been requested by the members to send you and all the members our greetings. Thank you very much. (Applause) MR. ESTEBAN VIVANCO (President Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs): Mr. Chairman, just to thank you for the warm welcome as President of the AMD and the great dinner we enjoyed yesterday, even being inside the Manicomio. Thank you very much. It was a very, very nice night. MR. DAVID CLANCEY (Fellow): I just would like on behalf of all the Fellows to congratulate you on your address which will give us all something to think about. I have to say I do not think I will be on the Advisory Committee when it comes to us to deal with. Thank you very much. (Applause) THE CHAIRMAN: I did not know you were going to step down. It is 2023, David. 24
Annual Report 2022
THE SECRETARY: Any other questions or comments? If not, is there any other business? I am sure they would have already raised it. Before Michiel formally closes the meeting, may I ask the new Fellows, Senior Associates and Georgio to stay behind for a photo? Otherwise I will pass over to Michiel to close the meeting. THE CHAIRMAN: It was quite a long meeting so I hope the hot starters are still hot, Ann! I therefore very quickly close this meeting. Thank you very much for coming. Of course I would love to see you all tonight at dinner in The Savoy. I really look forward to seeing you there. (Applause)
25
Annual Report 2022
Fellows 2022 Ahern - John R (1983)
Rogers Wilkin Ahern LLP, London, UK Tel: +44 207 220 0920 Email: john@rogerswilkinahern.com
Bramwell - Ian J (1997)
London International A.A. Co., Peterborough, UK Tel: +44 1733 551 003 Email: liaa@btopenworld.com
Cao - Jie Matthew (2015)
Gard P&I (Bermuda) Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 69785482 Email: matthew.cao@gard.no
Clancey - David C (1978)
Marine Adjusting Solutions, Herts, UK Tel: +44 7785 312 443 Email: david.clancey@marineadjustingsolutions.com
Duncan - J Miles (1977)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: miles.duncan@rhl-ct.com
Ewing - Gerald J (1987)
Regis Mutual Management Pty Ltd, NSW, Australia Tel: +61 2 9252 1599 Email: gerald.ewing@rmml.com
Fei – Peter Xiao Ming (2019) Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 3752 2508 Email: peter.fei@charlestaylor.com Fischer - Burkhard P (2011)
Albatross Adjusters Ltd, Limassol, Cyprus Tel: +357 2558 8988 Email: b.fischer@alba.com.cy
Hao - Rui (2020)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: rui.hao@ctplc.com
Hara - Nanami (2020)
Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7015 2055 Email: nanami.hara@rhl-ct.com
Harvey - Michael D (1978)
Harvey Ashby Ltd, Suffolk, UK Tel: +44 1206 689 500 Email: mharvey@harvey-ashby.co.uk
Jones - Keith (1984)
Aon Risk Solutions, London, UK Tel: +44 207 086 4219 Email: keith.jones@aon.co.uk
Kallini – Angeliki (2019)
Richards Hogg Lindley (Hellas) Ltd, Piraeus, Greece Tel: +30 210 429 1870 Email: angeliki.kallini@rhl-ct.com
Kilbee - Chris C (1987)
Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 6438 4016 Email: chris@marineclaimsoffice.com
Lai – William (2019)
Charles Taylor Adjusting, Hong Kong Tel: +852 5803 4569 Email: william.lai@rhl-ct.com
Macdonald - John A (1972)
Macdonald Hebditch & Co. Ltd, Surrey, UK Tel: +44 1428 715 533 Email: jmacdo5604@aol.com
Madge - Tim J W (1979)
Mediterranean Average Adjusting Co, London, UK Tel: +44 1483 222407 Email: timmadge@medav.co.uk
Magkanaris - Stelios (2017) Marine Adjusters & Consultants Inc, Piraeus, Greece Tel: +30 6945 584423 Email: sm@maradco.com Margaritopoulos – George (2019) Richards Hogg Lindley (Hellas) Ltd, Piraeus, Greece
Tel: +30 6944 443075 Email: georgios.margaritopoulos@rhl-ct.com
26
Annual Report 2022
Fellows 2022 (continued) Martin - Keith J (1990)
KJM Claims Consulting, Pierrevert, France Tel: +44 7985 416 748 Email: keith.martin@hotmail.com
Phillip McCabe (2022)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool UK Tel: +44 151 235 5581 Email: phillip.mccabe@charlestaylor.com
Miller - Tristan E L (2014)
Willis Towers Watson, London, UK Tel: +44 7766 205225 Email: tristanelm@gmail.com
Mody - Leena (2002)
Leena Mody & Associates, Mumbai, India Tel: +91 98204 34528 Email: leena@leenamody.com
O’Neill – Amy (2013)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: amy.oneill@rhl-ct.com
Pannell - David M (1968)
Pannell & Co, Surrey, UK Tel: +44 1483 566 533 Email: pannellandco@outlook.com
Paton - Andrew M (1987)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: andrew.paton@rhl-ct.com
Richards - Willum (1992)
Willum Richards Consulting Ltd, Central Otago, New Zealand Tel: +64 21 132 1863 Email: willum.richards@wrconsulting.co.nz
Robinson - Heather (2017)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Dubai, UAE Tel: +971 43 583 963 Email: heather.robinson@rhl-ct.com
Rogers - Nigel J C (1985)
Rogers Wilkin Ahern LLP, London, UK Tel: +44 207 220 0920 Email: nigel@rogerswilkinahern.com
Rowland - Paul O (1996)
Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 207 015 2045 Email: paul.rowland@rhl-ct.com
Sekine - Tsukasa (1992)
Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd, Chiyoda-Ku, Japan Tel: +81 3 3518 9601 Email: tsukasa.sekine@rhl-ct.com
Shead - Joseph (2019)
Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7398 5330 Email: joseph.shead@ctplc.com
Shimura - Ryoko (2021) Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd Tel: +81 335189601 Email: Ryoko.Shimura@ctplc.com Silver - Paul (1986)
Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 7785 948832 Email: paul.silver@rhl-ct.com
Slade - Andrew (2017) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 20 7398 5354 Email: andrew.slade@ctplc.com Sturges - Keith V (1990) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Email: keith.sturges@rhl-ct.com Tang - Christopher Y C (1982) Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 9789 3938 Email: chris.tang@amadjusting.com John Thompson (2022)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool UK Tel: +44 78800 95792 Email: john.thompson@rhl-ct.com
27
Annual Report 2022
Fellows 2022 (continued) Tomlinson - Robert M P (2017) Gard (UK) Ltd, London, UK Tel: +44 7895 675715 Email: robert.tomlinson@gard.no Tucker - R Ian (1992)
Maritime Adjusting Services, London, UK Tel: +44 20 8720 6788 Email: ian.tucker@maritimeadjusters.com
Willan - James (2021)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 2355579 Email: james.willan@ctplc.com
Wong - Raymond T C (1980)
Asia Maritime Adjusting, Hong Kong Tel: +852 9265 9199 Email: raymond.wong@averageadj.com
Wood - Richard W (1986)
Charles Taylor Management Services, Connecticut, USA Tel: +1 713 862 4290 Email: richard.wood@signal-ct.com
Xu - Yibing (2008)
Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 5803 4576 Email: yibing.xu@rhl-ct.com
Honorary Life Fellows Mr John Wilson Mr Charles Hebditch
Mr Roger Street Mr Richard Cornah
Non-Practising Fellows Martin - John (2000) Starmans - Michiel (2001)
Honorary Fellows The Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony The Rt. Hon. Lord Hamble of Kersey The Rt. Hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick The Rt. Hon. Lord Mance The Rt. Hon. Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers The Rt. Hon. Lord Saville of Newdigate The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Flaux The Rt. Hon. Sir Anthony Evans The Rt. Hon. Sir Bernard Rix The Rt. Hon. Sir David Steel The Rt. Hon. Sir Stephen Tomlinson Sir Nigel Teare Mr David Taylor Mr Jonathan Gilman QC Mr Julian Cooke
28
Annual Report 2022
Senior Associates as at May 2022 Chen Hung Yi (Jimmy) Richards Hogg Lindley Hong Kong Ellis Jack Willis Towers Watson United Kingdom Freuling Christian Jona Richards Hogg Lindley Greece Gibbs Benjamin INDECS Consulting Ltd United Kingdom Jagannath Muthu NAU Pte Ltd Singapore Poojary Rathna Jani, Clancey & Richards India Rappal Varrier Manoj BP Singapore Pte Ltd Singapore Roumanou Julia Independent Average Adjusters Ltd Greece Sakurai Konosuke Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Company Japan Sasegbon Deji CJC Law United Kingdom Warr Charlotte Sarnia Training Ltd United Kingdom
Associates as at May 2022 Abdelnaby Maged MECON /Alexandria University Egypt Egypt Agfaransyah Mufli Charles Taylor Adjusting Indonesia Anastasiadis Eva Richards Hogg Lindley Greece Ashurst Anthony Richards Hogg Lindley United Kingdom Avdimiotis Athanasios Hellenic Marine Adjusters S.A. Greece Bailas Panagiotis Marine Adjusting Solutions Greece Balaouras John GARD Greece Greece Barker Mark XL Catlin United Kingdom Barker Max Cambiaso Risso Group United Kingdom Barnard Dave Reed Smith LLP United Kingdom Best Neil AqualisBraemar LOC Singapore Bibaj Albana Siat SPA Italy Cardy Jonathan Stichling Hahn Hilbrich GmbH Germany Cavallo Giorgio Studio Dott. Giorgio Cavallo Italy Chairul Zulfiandri Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia Chan Yin Ting (Amy) Yin Ting Chan Canada Charalampous Constantinos Albatross Adjusters Limited Cyprus Chiampas Vasiliki Seascope Hellas S.A. Greece Ching Weng Thim Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd Singapore Chomata Angeliki Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Chow Yuk Yi (Cory) Richards Hogg Lindley Hong Kong Christea Stavriani Roxana Shipping S.A. Greece Christodoulou Kyriacos Albatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Chrysomalli Athina Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Chu Wing Yin Asia Maritime Pacific (Hong Kong) Ltd China Comitardi Alberto Thomas Miller & Co United Kingdom Contreras Isabel Matthews Daniel United Arab Emirates Coop Derek The Claims Cooperative South Africa Dallaway Amy MS Amlin United Kingdom Dandhie Christ Charles Taylor Adjusting (Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia
29
Annual Report 2022
Associates as at May 2022 (continued) Dang Phoichau Ambrey Insurance Limited United Kingdom Drakatou Pippi Oceana Marine Claims & Adjusting Greece Drege Ronaldo Albatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Duncan Alice Richard Hogg Ltd United Kingdom Exadaktylos Dimitrios Marine Adjusting Solutions Greece Exadaktylou Georgia Southampton University Greece Fahrizal Fahrizal PT. MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Gautama Mukesh Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt Ltd India Georgakopoulos Vassilis Enterprises Shipping & Trading S.A. Greece Georgiadi Rea Marine Adjusting Solutions Inc Greece Georgiou Konstantinos RSA Spain Gibbins Daniel Blue Seas Adjusters United Kingdom Gilchrist Iain NEPIA United Kingdom Greene Alexander Seascope Insurance Services United Kingdom Haake Sean Charles Taylor - RHL United Kingdom Hoh Evelyn (Lai Fun) Aon Singapore (Broking Centre) Pte Ltd Singapore Huang Zhanghao Richards Hogg Lindley China Hubbuck Jeremy Willis Towers Watson Norway Irani Zarir Constellation Marine Services LLC United Arab Emirates Jani Amit Jani, Clancey & Richards India Jani Nitika Jani, Clancey & Richards India Jeong Joey Sangsu Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. Korea - Republic of Johannessen Alf Inge Gard AS Norway Kafka Ioanna The Swedish Club Greece Karaloizou Costas Albatross Adjusters Ltd Cyprus Keaney Donal Ince Gordon Dadds LLP United Kingdom Kemp Alex Holman Fenwick Willan LLP United Kingdom Kilbee James Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd Singapore Krivovs Daniils ClaimSolutions France Leung Nicole Gard (HK) Limited Hong Kong Levantis Alexandros Marine Adjusting Solutions Greece Levendal Adriaan QBE Australia Lim Siew Ping AXA XL Singapore Lim Yonghwan Ed Broking Korea Korea - Republic of Liu Yi Charles Taylor Adjusting China Lynskey Mark Mediterranean Average Adjusting Company United Kingdom Mackenzie Andrew Atrium Underwriting Ltd United Kingdom Manohara Bernadette PT. MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Margetis George Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Marsden Susanna Travelers United Kingdom Martinez Gonzalez Alejandro Charles Taylor Adjusting Mexico Marwaha Himanshu CHM Global LLC Qatar McArthur Bradleigh BMS Group United Kingdom McCaughey Thomas Charles Taylor Adjusting United Kingdom McDonach Tony Ince Gordon Dadds LLP United Kingdom McKeown Niamh Richards Hogg Lindley United Kingdom
30
Annual Report 2022
Associates as at May 2022 (continued) Michalakopoulos Nikolaos Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Mitchell Matthew QBE Marine & Energy Syndicate 1036 United Kingdom Mondal Swapnodeep Anglo Eastern Ship Management Ltd Hong Kong More Anuradha United India Insurance Company Limited India Musolino Pino North Central Thyrrenian Sea Port Authority Italy Naqvi Asif Amaan Syndicate Pakistan Naveed Sameen QBE Insurance Australia Limited Australia Nizham Khairul NA Singapore North Andrew The North of England P&I Association Limited United Kingdom Osborne Debbie AXA XL United Kingdom Otmar Melis BMS Harris & Dixon Marine United Kingdom Patel Nishi Skuld United Kingdom Pathak Abhishek License no: IRDA/IND/SLA-121080 India Pell Louise Munich Re United Kingdom Pinheiro Joel Quest Marine LLC United Arab Emirates Ramadhan Ghulaam PT MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Ramadhillah Raihan PT. MCO Prima Indonesia Indonesia Revis Mark LIAA China Rizioti Stella The Guardian (Maritime) Ltd Greece Robinson Matthew Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd United Kingdom Rocca Laura Studio Tecnico Lonoce Italy Rolland Adam Braden Marine Inc. Canada Roncallo Tomaso Siat Spa Italy Rowe Steven Richards Hogg Lindley United Kingdom Russwurm Jørgen Skuld Marine Agency (SMA) AS Norway Sabaroedin Justisia Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia Saisana-Palyvou Efi The Swedish Club Greece Sakai Yuno Charles Taylor (Japan) Ltd. Japan Saputro Bagus Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama Internusa) Indonesia Saraswati Rininta Charles Taylor Adjusting Indonesia Sarll Richard 7 King’s Bench Walk United Kingdom Sawamura Satoshi Okinawa Prefectural Government Japan Sengendo Elizabeth Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty United Kingdom Setyorini Maurene Ayu PT Global Internusa Adjusting Indonesia Shao Jie DHL GBS Insurance & Risk Management Hong Kong Shaw Alexander Richard Hoggs Lindley United Arab Emirates Shurville Daniel Zodiac Maritime Limited United Kingdom Simiakaki Georgia VC Marine Claims Adjusters & Consultants Greece Singhal Rahul Gard (Singapore) Pte Ltd Singapore Sitompul Andrea Richards Hogg Lindley Indonesia Siu Rocky, L.K. Asia Maritime Adjusting (Hong Kong) Hong Kong Skiadas Nicole Stewart and Hazell Marine Services Greece Smith Lucy Atrium Underwriting Group Service United Kingdom Smoili Evangelia TMS Bulkers LTD Greece Smyth William AXA XL United Kingdom Stevens Daniel Gallagher United Kingdom Svensson Ingrid The Swedish Club Sweden
31
Annual Report 2022
Associates as at May 2022 (continued) Symes Matthew Bermuda Monetary Authority Bermuda Taki Kazuhiko Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. Japan Tan Robert Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd Singapore Tan Si Hua (Stan) Richards Hogg Lindley Singapore Tang Joseph Kuok Group Singapore Tasios Petros Seascope Hellas S.A. Greece Teeling Jonet Anchor Insurance Rotterdam Netherlands Teh Jay Jun (Audrey) MS Amlin Singapore Truszczynska Marlena Norwegian Hull Club Norway Tsekos Dimitrios V C Marine Claims Adjusters and Consultants Ltd Greece van der Houven van Oordt Haco AKD Netherlands van Hal Arnold Van Traa Advocaten N.V. Netherlands Wang Chia Sheng Overseas Adjusters & Surveyors Co., Ltd. Taiwan Wee Ya Lun (Aaron) W K Webster & Co Singapore Wheatley Alex Richards Hogg Lindley United Kingdom Whittle Adam Brookes Bell United Kingdom Wilkie Graham Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance United Kingdom Wong Pui Yi (Pearl) Asia Maritime Adjusting (Hong Kong) China Wright James Mar Risk Services Limited United Kingdom Xiaoshu Ren MS Amlin Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Singapore Youles-Fitzgerald Madonna Liberty Speciality Markets Australia Youn Seonggwan HMM Company Limited Korea - Republic of Young Elle Kennedys Law United Kingdom Zareifis Alexandros Margetis Maritime Consulting Greece Zhang Xinming (Tiffany) COSCO SHIPPING BULK CO., Ltd China Zhou Weiyan Gard (UK) Ltd United Kingdom Zhu Zizhen Skuld Hong Kong
Representative Members Smit Salvage BV, UK The Britannia Steamship Insurance Association, UK W K Webster & Co, UK Waves Group, UK
AXA XL, UK C Solutions Ltd, UK Marint (Offshore Services) Ltd, UK Resolve Salvage & Fire (Europe) Ltd, UK
Affiliate Members British Maritime Law Association, UK International Salvage Union, UK UK Chamber of Shipping, UK
32
Annual Report 2022
Subscribers as at May 2022 Exadactylos Anthony Greece Fairweather Karen UK Farrell David USA Fellin Eileen USA Fitz-Hugh Clark USA Florenzano Luca Italy Flori Gianluca Italy Fokas-Kavalierakis Stavros Cyprus Foss Patrick UK Fraih Fares UAE Fraser Ian Canada Galvan Angel Spain Garis Anastasios Greece Gibson Bill UK Gibson Cosmo Paraguay Gigney Michael UK Glover Peter Hong Kong Golding Maureen UK Goodacre Stephen UK Gozdzik Dariusz UK Grafton Maria UK Gran Philip USA Grasso Joseph USA Gray Andrew UK Gray Martin Greece Greene James Ireland Grepne Harald Norway Groninger Joern Germany Groninger Philip Germany Gunn Richard UK Hahn Britta Germany Hahn Juergen Germany Hall Martin UK Hatcher Jack UK Hawkins Neil UK Hicks John UK Hirase Shigeto Japan Hogendorp Jacob Singapore Howell Peter Greece Hudson John UK Hunter Glen New Zealand Hutchings Oliver UK Iguera Martina Italy Jackson Graham UK Jackson Simon UK Jackson Thaminah UK Janssen Dirk Germany Jeon Sora UK
Adhikari David Singapore Aggersbury Robin UK Ahmed Alavi Burhan Pakistan Alverandy Ariowibowo Johanes Indonesia Alvisi Alberto Italy Anagnostopoulos John UK Asbury Michael UK Austin Kevin UK Avramoglou Angeliki Greece Baird Graeme UK Banner Simon UK Bartlett James USA Bell Michael USA Berridge Anthony UK Bhardwaj Mukesh India Black W L Rivers USA Bolden Andrew UK Borg Barthet Maria UK Botsos Nikolaos Greece Brain Anthony Canada Brewer James UK Briem Gardar Iceland Bruce Jonathan UK Burdass Tom UK Burke Ina USA Byrne Matthew Gibraltar Cabral Sheel UAE Camera Guglielmo Italy Carbone Alessandro Italy Carpenter Nigel Singapore Cavallo Stefano Italy Chalaris Marios Greece Chan Jolyon Hong Kong Chartokollis Michail UK Chatzigeorgiou Sotirios Greece Chiossone Marzia Italy Choi Cheuk Shuen Vincci Hong Kong Clark Julian UK Clift Rhys UK Coleman Nicholas Norway Costourou Christiana Greece D’Andrea Franco UK de Jongh Camiel Netherlands Dower Keith Patrick Greece Drikos Nikolaos Greece Dumpala Sai Vamshi Krishna UAE Dupuis Robert Netherlands Evans Jonathan UK
33
Annual Report 2022
Subscribers as at May 2022 (continued) Muller Peter Netherlands Munkeby Oyvind Norway Nah Poh Ann Singapore Nakada Eiichi Japan Nakajima Kiyokazu Japan Noble John UK Nordahl Margrete Norway Osmotherley Phil UK Owen John UK Panggabean Sahat Indonesia Papadiamantis George Greece Park Jae Hong Panama Patiño Felix Spain Phelps Alan Greece Phippard Ralph Greece Pinto Alex Singapore Pochet Guy Belgium Portuondo Cristina Spain Pourpoutidis Nikolaos UK Priano Gian Piero Italy Prichard Rob USA Rekantzis Nikos Greece Rible Stephen USA Richardson Joseph Ireland Roderick Michael UK Rodrigues Sheinnorn UAE RodrÃguez DÃaz Aladar Panama Rokstad Vilde Norway Rudek Lars-Uwe Germany Ryan Peter Singapore Ryder Seamus Canada Ryles Howard UK Sandbakken Einar Norway Sanden Roar Norway Sato Shigeki Japan Sato Tomoaki Japan Schwampe Dieter Germany Shahid A K M Reaz Australia Shen Thomas Tai-Chung China Siemens Jan-Andresen Germany Slaatten Bjorn Norway So Gisselle Hong Kong Spencer Jonathan USA Sporle David UK Staib William USA Steemers Michael Cyprus Stylianou Nicos Cyprus Sun Jiajing China - Hong Kong
Johnston Alistair UK Jordan Frank USA Karagianni Petroula Monaco Kardiakopoulos Dimitris Greece Kardiakopoulos Neoklis Greece Kastanas George Greece Kauffeld Tilmann Sweden Kay Alexander Germany Keyes David UK Ki Gen Japan Koelzer James USA Kofoed Vibeke Denmark Kouveli Maria-Eleni Greece Kruit Jolien Netherlands Kuchipudi Kishor Singapore Kuiper Judith Netherlands Kumar Harshvardhan Australia Lamproukos Evangelos - Christos Greece Langeland Truls Norway Lawrence Stewart UK Laws Kate UK Lech Anne Norway Lee Chia Yun Taiwan Legat Paola Italy Leung Thomas Hong Kong Lillis John USA Lim Henson Philippines Lin Sandy China Linbei Sheng China Crane Anita UK Lonoce Lorenzo Monaco Lucking Michelle UK Lux Jonathan UK Machum Eric Canada Macinnes Alex UK Martinoli Federico Italy Marwedel Warren USA Mathew Sujith UAE McCarthy Stephen UK McGinty Tom UK McGurran Mark UK Mellett Peter UK Metcalf Frank Canada Meyers John USA Mizuno Kotaro Japan Monioudis Dimitris UK Moore Donald USA Morelli Francesco Italy
34
Annual Report 2022
Subscribers as at May 2022 (continued)
Vega Alejandro Argentina Virvilis Isabella UK Vivanco Esteban Argentina Waite Ann UK Walker John USA Watson Harold USA Wattel Markwin Netherlands Wells Matthew UK White Ralph USA Whyte Gordon UK Wiersma Taco Netherlands Wolf Martina Germany Woods John USA Xi Ashlee UK Xu Ye China Zaarour Petro UK Zampichelli Giovanni Italy Zavos Christopher UK Zeuner Robert USA Zinke Jon Hong Kong Zolezzi Francesco UK
Sweetman Edmund Spain Sydenham Chris UK Systad Anne Norway Tampubolon Guntur Indonesia Tan AhChuan Malaysia Tan Brenda Singapore Tantrum David USA Tassiou Kyriaki UK Taylor Tim UK Terrell Martin Singapore Touman Faramarz Germany Tsakiris Ilias Greece Tu Yun Taiwan Umeno Koji Japan Uth Henrik Denmark Valenti Alessandro Singapore van der Valk Taco Netherlands van Hemmen Hendrik USA Vanovski Ivan UK Vassenden Bjørn Norway
Past Chairmen 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 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
35
Mr T S Cookes Mr J S Allen Mr W E Towers Mr W Lowndes Sir D Owen, K.B.E. Mr A Lindley Mr A H May Mr W Richards, C.B.E. The Hon Mr Justice G Barnes Mr M G Towers Mr E R Lindley Mr F C Dale The Hon Mr Justice Kennedy Mr M A Rudell, C.B.E. Mr J B Wallace Mr T R Miller Mr J S Hogg Mr F T Loftus Mr J H Scrutton Mr M Dale Mr C W Henzell The Right Hon Viscount Mersey Mr B T Harland Mr G S Lloyd Davies Mr A W Dauglish Mr A D MacKinnon Sir T J Storey, K.B.E.
Annual Report 2022
Past Chairmen (continued) 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 1970 1971
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 Mr D L Towers Mr R A H Arnold
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 2019 2020 2021
36
The Rt Hon Sir G Willmer, O.B.E., T.D. Mr N G Hudson Mr G H May Mr D G Milburn Mr A B Dann M.A., J.P. Mr C R D Towers The Right Hon Lord Justice Roskill Mr D C Cooper Mr W P F Bennett, M.A. 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 J 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 O Rowland Mr A M Paton Mr K J Martin Mr W Richards Mr W Richards Mr R Cornah Mr M Starmans
www.average-adjusters.com