Annual Report2015

The Association ofAverage Adjusters

Annual Report 2015

CONTENTS

• CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION 4

• REPORT OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 5

• ADDRESS BY THE CHAIRMAN 10

• LIST OF FELLOWS 20

• NON-PRACTISING FELLOWS 21

• LIST OF HONORARY FELLOWS 22

• LIST OF ASSOCIATE MEMBERS 22

• LIST OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS 24

• LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS 25

• LIST OF PAST CHAIRMEN 28

3

ANNUAL REPORT 2015

Annual Report 2015

4

CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTION

As outgoing Chairman I am pleased to report that the Association is in good shape and I am confident it will remain so under the stewardship of the new Chairman, Andrew Paton and the new Vice–Chairman, Keith Martin.

Particularly pleasing were the exam results which produced one new Fellow, Matthew Cao and a further 30 new Associates. There are now approaching 150 Associates and I strongly believe that the AAA exams continue to provide a very important educational platform for those engaged in marine claims.

An updated version of the publication “Introduction to Marine Claims” was produced and is now available on the Association website. Work is also presently in hand for further Chairmans’ Addresses to be available on the website together with a number of historical, but important, Advisory Committee opinions. It is very much hoped that in the not too distant future the Association website will prove to be a vital educational resource for practitioners.

The tradition of delivering topical market seminars was maintained with four interesting seminars taking place through the year and there is every intention to continue is this vein.

At the AGM, the probationary Rules of Practice A4 and B1 dealing with allowances in respect of both particular average and general average, were adopted and will now form part of the Rules of Practice of the Association.

As outgoing Chairman all that remains is for me to thank Andrew Paton, Fellows, Associates, the Secretariat and particularly our Secretary, Ann Waite, for their tremendous support throughout the year.

Paul Rowland

Officers of the Association 2015

Chairman - Paul Rowland Vice-Chairman - Andrew Paton

Hon Treasurer - Ian Tucker Convener of the Examining Committee - David Pannell

Secretary - Ann Waite Administrator - Jill Williamson

Secretariat: c/o RTI Ltd, International House, 1 St Katharine’s Way, London, E1W 1UNTel: +44 (0)20 7481 2150 Fax: +44 (0)20 7481 2149 Email:aaa@rtiforensics.com

Website: www.average-adjusters.com

THE 146th ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the

ASSOCIATION OF AVERAGE ADJUSTERSheld in the The Lloyd’s Old Library, Lloyd’s, One Lime Street, London EC3

on Thursday 14th May 2015

In the Chair: Mr Paul Rowland

THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning and welcome to the 146th Annual General Meeting of the Association of Average Adjusters. As is customary, I would like to start by extending a warm welcome to our distinguished guests: Steve Rible, who is Chairman of the Association of Average Adjusters in the US and Canada; Michael Harvey, who is a Fellow and President of AMD; Tetsuro Nakamura, representing the Average Adjusters Association of Japan; Vibeke Kofoed, representing the Nordic Average Adjusters Association; Stefano Cavallo, representing the Italian Association of Average Adjusters; and Bob Clyne, who is President of the US Maritime Law Association.

I would like to thank the US and Canadian Association for the hospitality extended to me during their meetings in New York in October. The Chairman’s private dinner was held in Greenwich Village at the oldest Italian American Club in the United States, I believe. It is also the headquarters of the New York Rifle Association. (Laughter) So, you have superb Italian food, splendid wines and then you can go down into the basement to the most excellent firing range. It is quite bizarre. Anyway, I did not go to the firing range. I figured that the last thing our friends in the US needed was another flaky person wielding a firearm!

So, to the agenda.

1. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE LAST GENERAL MEETING

THE CHAIRMAN:Instead of calling upon the Secretary to read the transcript of the last Meeting, I will move: “That in accordance with custom, the transcript of the last Meeting having been examined, agreed and certified by the Committee of Management, the same be now confirmed.”

Can I have a proposer? (Proposed by Mr. D.M. Pannell; seconded by Mr. M. Harvey)

MS. ANN WAITE (Secretary): Does everyone agree? Can we have a show of hands to adopt that? (Agreed)

2. REPORT BY THE CHAIRMAN, PAUL ROWLAND, ON THE PAST YEAR OF THE ASSOCIATION.

THE CHAIRMAN: I should report, firstly, that at yesterday’s Annual Meeting of Fellows, Andrew Paton, was elected as Chairman for the ensuing year and Keith Martin as Vice Chairman. The Association is in very safe hands for the foreseeable future. Congratulations. (Applause)

There is also some sad news to report. A number of people connected with the Association have passed away in the last year.

Annual Report 2015

5

Annual Report 2015

6

Sir Christopher Staughton, who was an Honorary Fellow and an Appeal Court judge, passed away at the age of 81. He was co editor of the 9th and 10th editions of Lowndes & Rudolf. I had met him, but I did not really know him. He was a patron of Clarity, a body advocating the use of clear legal language. Lord Mustill died very recently. He was an Honorary Fellow of this Association and was Chairman in 1997. His address “Humpty Dumpty and Risk Management” is still a good read.

John Duke has died. He was a Fellow and Chairman of this Association in 1981. I did not know him, but he practised with Dansons and I think he finished the last part of his career in Norway in Vesta’s office. From what I am told, he was a really nice guy and Richard Cornah went to his memorial service.

Finally, there was the very sad news, certainly for me, that Geoffrey Hudson passed away in February. Geoffrey was an Honorary Fellow and past Chairman of this Association in 1973. Quite a lot of you here would have known him and certainly a number of you will have read his books, namely, the book on insurance clauses, which he edited with Tim Madge and Keith Sturges, and his book on the York Antwerp Rules, which he edited with Michael Harvey.

On a personal note, when I joined Lindleys in 1977, Geoffrey was senior partner with David Milburn, so myself and one or two others here today certainly had the benefit of working with Geoffrey. For sure, I am a better practitioner because I did. David Taylor, however, would like to say a few words about Geoffrey.

MR. D. TAYLOR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate this opportunity to say a few words about Geoffrey. He died on 28th February of this year, just two weeks short of his 90th birthday. It was Geoffrey who introduced me to the Association so he has got a lot to answer for! He had incredible achievements. For over 60 years, he was husband to Ann, father of Tim, Jennifer and Matthew, Matthew is here today, and grandfather of Henry and Marcus.

He was a soldier, a gunner in the Anti Tank Regiment, one of the youngest captains commissioned in the Second World War. He was a scholar. He read law at St. John’s College, Oxford. He was a lawyer and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple.

He was an average adjuster, a Fellow, an Honorary Fellow and a past Chairman in 1973. He was a titular member of CMI. A titular member is somebody who is honoured for the special services to the field of maritime law. He was President of AIDE or AMD, as it now is. I understand that he was also being groomed as a possible Liberal MP so he had many options. It was while that was happening that he met Ann.

He was described as “a dashing intellectual”. He was a teacher, a lecturer, a tutor and the author of the volumes which the Chairman has already mentioned. These books are complete staples and are essential works for anybody who has aspirations in the international maritime world. They are in their fourth and fifth editions. I looked them up yesterday and the cost today, if you buy them online, is just shy of £700.00. That is money very well spent if you have not got them already.

I worked with Geoffrey wherever general average was being discussed. There was Sydney, for the 1994 Rules, where it was very daunting to have Geoffrey as a delegate and Lord Donaldson as a leader of the delegation, while I, as Geoffrey put it, after many tribulations, managed to steer the Committee to the 1994 Rules. We went to Paris, New York, Warsaw, Antwerp, Genoa, Copenhagen, Travemunde, all of those places and many more.

General average is sometimes seen as the practice of the dark arts. I think Geoffrey would see it more as a faith. Geoffrey’s contribution to the world of general average makes him quite genuinely a defender of the faith: fidei defensor, as Latin scholars would have it. He was a skilful and courageous defender of the principles. There were, and are, many attacks on the existence of GA, but all of these foundered on the rock that was Geoffrey. He had an enormous skill in analysing the true impact of proposed changes and, having done that, he knew where the risks lay.

He enjoyed the confidence of Lord Diplock, Lord Denning, Lord Mustill and Lord Donaldson and he strode comfortably with them. Lord Donaldson described him as “a renowned expert who could explain to others the mysteries of which he is master”. That is an enormous compliment.

Legal giants like these were not like other judges who suffer mental meltdown at the mere mention of the two words “general average”. Geoffrey was the antidote to this affliction. He could be unconventional, witness the unscheduled speech at the Annual Dinner, which not only confounded me, but threw chaos into the minds of those who were betting on the outcome because they did not know whether Geoffrey’s speech counted in the aggregate or whether it could be ignored. (Laughter)

But Geoffrey could never be ignored. At the AIDE meeting in Cambridge, he replied to a speech from the French President, which was, of course, delivered in French. Geoffrey replied in French, unprompted and indeed unasked. (Laughter) He always had a sense of occasion. His vocabulary was superb, but he did not always sound like a native. As a French Canadian adjuster, John Cantello, remarked, slightly out of line, “Geoffrey’s next trick will be to make the snake go down the rope.”

To me, the Secretary, he was a mentor and a friend. His presence at these meetings always daunted me because he was always there and his interventions were never frivolous. When he intervened, it felt like being given a hand grenade with the pin pulled out.

Geoffrey would be pleased that the study of the York Antwerp Rules, which is about to take place in Istanbul next month, is under the watchful eye of Richard Cornah. The delegates will be disadvantaged not only by his not being there, but by not being able to follow him. He always knew the best restaurants. You would hear him say to the maitre d’ as he arrived at a restaurant, “Your finest table in the house, if you don’t mind”, followed by a gin and french.

I am going to suggest to the Association that there should always be an empty chair at the front of this Meeting as a stark reminder of his contributions. Thank you, Matthew, for coming and giving me some information which I did not have. May I just say that we are missing you, Geoffrey, and we will always need you. Thank you. (Applause)

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you David. Moving on, in so far as concerns the Association’s exams, these took place in October 2014 when only Associate level papers can be sat, and March 2015, when both Fellow and Associate level papers are sat. In October, there were 40 candidates sitting Associate modules A1 (the Marine Insurance Act and related principles) and A2 (Hull and Cargo claims) in 15 different locations worldwide. There were 16 passes at module 1 and 15 at module 2, with the outcome that the October exams produced 12 new Associates.

In March 2015, the exams were sat in 18 different locations worldwide. With the Associate papers, there were 18 passes at module 1 and 12 passes at module 2, with the outcome of a further 18 new Associates, a total of 30 new Associates. In all, there are roughly 150 Associates of this Association, which is quite an achievement, and the numbers sitting the exams do not seem to be diminishing.

I would like to congratulate those who passed during the year and if there are any new Associates present, could I ask you to stand up, please. (Applause) I have put the names on a slide as we all remember what happened a couple of years ago. Keith, would you like to read them out, particularly the bottom left? (Laughter)

MR. K. JONES: I think those are easier than the ones I read out.

THE CHAIRMAN: On the downside, there were 30 failures for candidates taking modules 1 and 2.

The Fellowship modules were taken in March and they require a pass mark of 75%. In module 1 (or F1 as it is now) GA, Salvage and Carriage of Goods by Sea, we had one pass out of five. In module 2, Hull Claims including Loss of Hire, we had nine passes out of 15. In module 3, Collision, Ancillary Insurances and Cargo

Annual Report 2015

7

Annual Report 2015

8

Claims, we had one pass out of three. In module 4 (or F4), our practical exam, we had one pass out of four candidates.

I am delighted to advise that after his success in module 4 (the practical paper) Matthew Ciao, who practises with Richards Hogg Lindley in Hong Kong, has become a Fellow. (Applause) Matthew, that means you get a practising certificate, or what we call a zero hours contract! Congratulations. (Applause)

I may be particularly nerdy, but I do not know if anybody else has ever read Mr. Manley Hopkins’ address when he was Chairman in 1875. It is a riveting read. You get the impression that he was a man who became an average adjuster because the priesthood was not pure enough! However, he did say this: “To the youngest members of our profession, and to those students who propose to enter it, those in fact who will carry on this work when we have to lay it down, I may perhaps be allowed to say this. Every honourable calling requires to be begun and continued on the right motives. I do not say you are to sacrifice yourself or your interests or to forego those rewards which diligence and steady work more generally bring; but the idea of probity, age and of honour, must never be absent from your actions and intentions. We cannot separate our lives into two portions; living well in one part of the day and questionably in the other. Such attempted duality must eventually prove a failure. If you can combine prudence and this kind of courage, you not only advance yourself, but the profession you adopt. By mutual accommodation, the man ennobles the office and the office, raised in quality and esteem, will add honour to the man.” So, not a lot to live up to, Matthew!

On the exams side, I would very much like to thank David Pannell for his continuing and tireless work in arranging the entire exam process and to the Fellows on the Examining Committee, who either set or mark papers. It is a huge task and it is not getting any easier so thank you very much indeed.

Our Associates continue to assist with the workings of various aspects of the Association. In particular, two of them sit on the Association’s Committee of Management and their input is hugely valuable. In this respect, I would like to offer the Association’s thanks to Marsh for providing the venue for the Associate’s lunch and gathering on Tuesday. Thank you very much.

I had the opportunity to attend the IMCC in Dublin in September, which was organised by Charlotte, Ann and the rest of the Committee. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones chaired it, so thank you. The IUA also invited the Association to hold two market briefings in October and April so thank you to Deborah Finch for all her help in this respect.

On a personal note, it has been Ann’s first year as Secretary. The Chairmanship is a kind of joint venture and I must have spoken to Ann more times than I spoke to my wife in the last year. I was going to say “interaction”, but it sounded so appalling. Thank you, Ann, for everything. It has been a huge amount of work so thank you very much.

We now move on to item 3 on the agenda, Rules of Practice.

3. RULES OF PRACTICE

THE CHAIRMAN: Last year, two Rules of Practice were adopted as probationary rules. They are both, to some extent, revisions. The first is B1. B1(a) already existed, but (b) and (c) were added. It is really a statement of best practice. That has been running for a year as a probationary rule as has A4, where section (2) was added to deal with the suggestion that on expiry of the policy, you can only claim on an unrepaired damage basis.

Having run for a year, we now propose that they be formally adopted as Rules of Practice rather than probationary rules. It needs a proposer and a seconder.

MS. ANN WAITE: We need a proposer, a seconder and then the vote is only by Fellows of the Association of Average Adjusters. (Proposed by Mr. R.R. Cornah; seconded by Mr. P. Rowland) Could we have a vote from Fellows present?

THE CHAIRMAN: This is for both rules.

MS. ANN WAITE: Yes, we are voting on both. All in favour? Anyone against? (Carried unanimously)

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

9

Annual Report 2015

10

Annual Report 2015

THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to make it clear that the words appearing on the screen are simply the title of my address. I am fully aware that there was also a well known movie bearing the same title but please be clear, there is no connection between the two. I therefore apologise to anyone who looked up from their mobile device, saw the screen, and was rather hoping that a particular two second snatch of the film might be running on a loop in the background. Apologies for the disappointment.

Some of my observations this morning concern recent court cases that may be subject to appeal. Please be clear that what follows are simply a practitioner’s observations. They reflect my own confusion and nothing more.

As you have just heard, one of the Association’s Rules of Practice has been extended to deal with the issue of measure of indemnity when a claim for particular average arises and the assured has elected to repair the vessel after expiry of the policy. You will also be aware that this arose as a consequence of the suggestion that once the policy has expired, and if repairs have not been affected, the assured is only entitled to claim on an unrepaired damage basis (even if repairs are effected at a later date).

For most experienced claims practitioners this was a rather startling suggestion and, instinctively, I suspect that most practitioners would have felt that it was, at best, questionable. Others may have taken a less polite view. This is often the way with claims practitioners: there is often a gut feeling about, or an instinctive response to, an issue. Most of us go through the regular ritual of considering a colleague’s enquiry about something that seems to have come up for the first time, for example: “Do you think this expense can be treated as part of the reasonable cost of repairs?” As a fellow practitioner, you probably give an instinctive response and then ask for some time to reflect on the issue.

This reflective process will likely include considering any legal principles involved, but often the deciding factor is the practical effect of what is being proposed. For example, with the issue that required an extension to the Rule of Practice, the potential practical effect of what was said to be the “correct legal principles” involved could have been:

(1) the assured taking the vessel out of service prior to expiry of the policy specifically to effect damage repairs as opposed to deferring repairs to the next routine dry docking and thereby sharing common costs with others, in other words, increasing the costs of claims; or

(2) it left an assured with an older vessel at the mercy of fluctuating market values.

Even if the legal principle was correct, the practical effect seems slightly mad. For my part, I cannot recall an insurer ever proposing that a PA case should be dealt with on the basis of the suggested “correct legal principle” and I have my doubts if it ever has been suggested by insurers. I am not sure if this was the particular issue that set in motion a subliminal train of thought relating to claims practitioners and their “gut reactions” or “basic instincts”. However, it was around this time that I happened to be researching something to do with term “accident” and was looking at Donald O’May’s book on marine insurance. There was a footnote in Donald O’May’s book that read: “For a fascinating case on the meaning of accident in a non marine insurance context, involving manslaughter and sex, see Gray v Barr (1971).” Now I have no great interest in manslaughter, but as an average adjuster I do spend most of my working life dealing with accidents. That said, however interesting or intellectually satisfying the average adjusters’ life may be, it rarely reaches the level of thrilling. Average adjusting is not an “extreme sport”. Consequently, for me at least, the combination of “accident” and “sex” made the Gray v Barr judgment an irresistible read.

ADDRESS BY THE CHAIRMAN

“BASIC INSTINCT”

It may be that some of you are familiar with this case, but for those of you who may not be, in brief, the facts were as follows. Mr Gray, was a married farmer. Mr and Mrs Barr ran a business in ladies’ blouses (I kid you not). They lived in the same village. In the words of the judgment, farmer Gray and Mrs Barr “fell in love with one another”. Marital chaos followed. I will not bore you with all of the details, but eventually there was a reconciliation between Mr and Mrs Barr.

However, on one evening, Mr Barr came home and he could not find Mrs Barr in the house and convinced himself that she must have gone back to farmer Gray. The traumatised Mr Barr stormed over to the farm to confront the farmer as he believed his wife was upstairs in his bedroom. He was carrying a loaded shotgun. As a warning, he fired one shot into the farmer’s ceiling and there was then some kind of tussle or grappling. The other barrel went off and farmer Gray ceased to be (or, put another way, he went the way of the legendary Norwegian blue parrot).

In the earlier criminal trial at the Old Bailey, the judge had directed the jury that if they thought it might have been an accident, they should acquit Mr Barr. They did. They found him not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter.

However, it did not end there. The widow of farmer Gray brought an action under the Fatal Accidents Act for the financial loss her and her children had suffered as a result of the wrongful killing of her husband. As it happened, the Barrs had a particular insurance policy in place which covered the legal liability to pay damages in respect of bodily injury to any person caused by “accidents”.

Now, I have no experience of criminal law (neither theoretical nor, thankfully, practical either). However, as a jobbing average adjuster, and given the decision in the criminal court, if I was asked for a view, I think my gut reaction would have been something along the lines of, “well, if it is not murder or manslaughter, it sounds like an accident to me”. And therein lies the danger of gut reactions or basic instincts.

The case went to the Court of Appeal where the leading judgement was delivered by Lord Denning who was at that time Master of the Rolls. Interestingly, he viewed the case in terms of proximate cause. He only referred, in this part of the judgment, to four other cases, all of which were marine related: Ioanides v Universal; Leyland Shipping v Norwich Union; Canada Rice Mills v Union Marine; and even Samuel v Dumas.

I have no idea whether aggrieved parties actually read judgments. It would be interesting to know how the Gray family related their tragic loss to a string of cases concerning the extinguishing of the Cape Hatteras light (with the consequent grounding of a ship and theft of cargo); a ship torpedoed off Le Havre and eventually breaking her back; and Samuel v Dumas, which was a scuttling case. I do not know what they would have made of it, but it is worth quoting Lord Denning simply because of the language used.

He said: “Applying this principle, I am of opinion that the dominant and effective cause of the death was Mr Barr’s deliberate act of going up the stairs with a loaded gun determined to see into the bedroom. The whole tragic sequence flows inexorably from that act. It was because of that loaded approach that Mr Gray grappled with Mr Barr. It was because of the grappling that Mr Barr fell and the gun went off. There was no new intervening cause at all.

Wait for it “Each one of us would readily forgive Mr Barr. He was distraught, fearful, anxious, provoked beyond endurance, quite beside himself with the thought that his wife had gone back to this man once again. Yet his conduct walking up the stairs with the loaded gun was no accident. It was deliberate. He was determined to get into the bedroom to see if his wife was there. It was the dominant cause of the death. It is not covered by the wording of the policy of insurance.”

So basic instincts are certainly not infallible; and apparently an accident may not necessarily be an accident.This brings me seamlessly to the case of the “Longchamp”, one of a couple of cases which have been heard by the courts fairly recently and which feature a number of “basic instinct” or “gut reaction” matters.

11

Annual Report 2015

12

Annual Report 2015

You will recall that the primary issue in the “Longchamp” case (Mitsui and others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte, 2014), was a claim for substituted expenses made under Rule F of the York Antwerp Rules. The vessel was forcibly taken by pirates in the Gulf of Aden and there was an initial ransom demand of US$6 million. Following a period of negotiation lasting roughly 50 days, a ransom was agreed in the amount of US$1.85 million.

During the negotiation period, and during which the initial ransom demand was reduced by US$4.15 million, certain expenses, including wages and maintenance of crew, continued to be incurred by ship interests and it was these wages costs that were claimed under Rule F of York Antwerp Rules in substitution of a higher ransom cost which would otherwise have been admissible in general average. The Court agreed that the substituted expenses, i.e. wages of crew, etc, were properly recoverable under Rule F.

The decision is quite interesting as I believe that the instinct of many claims practitioners would be otherwise. To many practitioners, it simply does not “feel right”. This may be in part because the expense claimed (i.e. wages) is delay related. In most cases of substituted expenses, the position is reversed. The expense avoided is delay related.

Take temporary repairs effected at a port of refuge. If by effecting temporary repairs instead of permanent repairs, a number of days GA detention costs are avoided, under most versions of the York Antwerp Rules, one would make a comparison between the cost of temporary repairs effected and the detention expenses avoided. The detention expenses avoided will mostly be delay related wages of crew, bunkers, port charges, etc, which would otherwise be admissible under the numbered rules of YAR. The position would be similar with excess cost of overtime.

So, in most cases, a cost has been incurred and delay related expenses have been avoided. The “Longchamp” is the other way round; delay related expenses are incurred and a Rule A expense has been avoided. In itself this is quite unusual. In fact, I have struggled to think of something else similar.

As you will appreciate, the judgment outlines the reasoned view why such costs are recoverable on a substituted expense basis, but there is still one aspect that I find difficult to reconcile and this was not really touched upon to any great extent in the judgement itself. This is the apparent conflict between Rule C and Rule F of York Antwerp Rules.

The current version of Rule C reads in part as follows: “Only such losses, damages or expenses which are the direct consequence of the general average act shall be allowed as general average ..... Demurrage, loss of market, and any loss or damage sustained or expense incurred by reason of delay, whether on the voyage or subsequently, and any indirect loss whatsoever shall not be allowed as general average.”

As you are fully aware, by reason of the Rule of Interpretation, the numbered Rules take precedence over the lettered Rules, hence under certain specific circumstances, wages of crew, although a loss by delay, are specifically allowable under the numbered Rule. However, when a claim is not being made under the numbered Rules why should an allowance for a delay related expense under Rule F overrule the delay exclusion under Rule C? I am not the first Chairman to be troubled by this apparent conflict it was an issue that was touched upon by Honorary Fellow John Wilson in his Chairman’s address in 1988.

Whilst Rule F refers to any additional expense incurred in place of another expense which would have been allowable as general average, I struggle with the idea that the use of the word “any”, in itself, is enough to override the specific exclusion in Rule C. The only possible reason I can see for making the allowance (and I am not entirely convinced that the reason is particularly strong) is that in the case of “Longchamp”, the York Antwerp Rules that applied were the 1974 version.

The relevant part of the 1974 Rules states “loss or damage sustained by the ship or cargo through delay whether on the voyage or subsequently such as demurrage and any indirect loss whatsoever such as loss of market shall not be admitted as general average”. The difference between the 1974 version and the current version (or even 1994 for that matter) is that the 1974 version does not include the word “expense”. Therefore, an argument can be made that wages of crew are not “loss or damage”, but an expense. They are therefore not excluded under 1974 Rules. I can see no other reason why Rule F should override Rule C. If this is correct, it would seem that the decision in the “Longchamp” may be of relatively limited effect and may only apply in circumstances should York Antwerp Rules 1974 be applicable. However, instinctively, it still does not “feel” right.

Another case heard earlier this year and which provides fairly fertile ground for “practitioners’ instincts” was that of “Brillante Virtuoso” (Suez fortune Investments Ltd v Talbot Underwriting Ltd and others, 2015). As you are no doubt aware, the main issue with which this aspect of the trial was concerned was whether the vessel was a constructive total loss (and certain other related aspects).

As an aside, one interesting aspect of the judgment is the number of references to a “prudent uninsured owner”. I recall reading a piece written by John Knott in the “Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly” wherein he referred to the prudent uninsured owner. He said: “A larger question, which this article does not treat, is whether any text referring to a ‘prudent uninsured owner’ has much realism in the modern world, where virtually all the cases discussed are funded by insurers. Indeed, ‘prudent’ and ‘uninsured’ often appear to be contradictory terms when used in connection with the ownership of a vessel worth perhaps many millions of dollars.”

Anyway, I digress, but perhaps in the modern world instead of “prudent uninsured owner” (who probably does not exist) one should think in terms of “reasonable” or simply “not mad”.

One of the interesting points in the case was whether the cost of repainting the vessel’s bottom could be taken into account when estimating the cost of repairs for the purpose of assessing whether the vessel was a CTL. It was argued on behalf of underwriters that because of the exclusion for bottom painting/treatment in Institute Time Clauses, underwriters had no liability for such costs and therefore this item could not be taken into account. In support of this view, Roskill’s J comments in the “Medina Princess” were cited. Roskill J was of the view that the cost of repainting the vessel’s bottom should be disallowed in calculating whether the vessel was a CTL on figures because of the exclusion in the policy conditions.

However, in “Brillante Virtuoso”, Flaux J commented as follows: “With the greatest respect to that learned Judge he provides no reasoning to support that conclusion and I do not see how the fact that the cost of repainting the bottom would not be recoverable from insurers on a partial loss claim precludes the inclusion of the cost of repainting the bottom (if necessitated by the casualty as was the case here) as part of the exercise of determining whether the overall cost of repairing the vessel exceeds her insuredvalue so that she is a CTL.”

Flaux J preferred the reasoning of Andrew Smith J in the case of the “Irene EM”, (Ventico Marine SA v International General Insurance Co, Ltd and others, 2013). In the “Irene EM”, Andrew Smith J commented: “On a simple reading of section 60 of the 1906 Act, the relevant costs are not defined by what would be recoverable from insurers: subject to the policy terms, in cases of damage to a ship what matters is ‘the cost of repairing the damage’. The policies in this case referred to ‘the cost of recovery and/or repair of the vessel’. However, my decision does not depend upon this point, and I do not determine it: it is better decided in a case in which there have been full submissions from the assured and the underwriters.”

The costs in question in “Irene EM” included, amongst other things, consulting and attendances during surveys and repair, port charges and disbursements, class fees, adjusters’ charges and strength calculations. Unlike bottom painting, none of these costs are specifically excluded by the hull and machinery policy in question. So, perhaps not quite the same thing as bottom painting and, interestingly, an issue upon which the case did not turn and upon which Andrew Smith J elected not to be drawn.

13

Annual Report 2015

14

Annual Report 2015

I think I do understand the point being made in terms of section 60 of the Act and, say, Clause 19 of ITC 1.10.83. All one is trying to establish is does the overall cost of repairing the vessel exceed the insured value? If so, that is it. However, given the Bottom Treatment Clause (Clause 15 of ITC, 1.10.83) starts with the words “In no case shall a claim be allowed ....”, it is not that easy to understand why it should apply to partial losses only. The Court’s decision must be correct, but it may not sit very easily with a practitioners’ instinct.

I believe in the “Brillante” judgment, the comment was that after eight months of remaining motionless, the vessel would have lost its underwater and anti fouling protection and the bottom would have required repainting. Interestingly, no one seems to have given any consideration to the fact that the loss may have been the result of delay. Odd, you may say.

I wonder what the position would be if it said, “In no case shall a claim be allowed ....” for, say, propeller damage. Imagine a serious grounding case involving extensive damage to the vessel’s bottom plating and also to the propeller. Do these recent decisions mean that in establishing whether the vessel is a CTL on figures, one takes into account not only the shell plating repairs, but also the cost of repairing or replacing the propeller, which would otherwise be excluded? Apparently so, but it feels odd.

Whilst this may not seem particularly important on the basis that in most cases the cost of bottom treatment is unlikely to be a make or break item when calculating whether a vessel is a constructive total loss, the reasoning behind it may go somewhat further. Imagine a case where a ship has grounded (for convenience say in ballast) and is subsequently refloated under LOF with Scopic invoked. Imagine Scopic costs of US$3 million of which it is considered that US$1.8 million represents the Article 13 award with US$1.2 representing an amount recoverable under Article 14 for efforts to avoid environmental damage. Assuming there is nothing untoward and there was no pollution, what ranks in the CTL calculation? Is it just the $1.8 million Article 13 element for refloating the ship or is it the total of US$3 million?

A practitioner’s instinct may be that the $1.2 million Article 14 proportion is for the account of the P&I Club and therefore can play no role in assessing whether a vessel is a CTL on figures. However, if there was no pollution and the total of US$3 million is simply what it cost to refloat and/or recover the vessel, the reasoning applied in the “Brillante Virtuoso” would seem also to apply to these expenses.

This situation may not happen very often, but it seems it may be important to give quite careful consideration to the difference between establishing what may rank in order to establish whether a vessel is or is not CTL on figures and not confuse that with what may be otherwise recoverable under the hull policy. Instinctively, hull insurers may feel that they can rely on an exclusion clause in the policy, but apparently that may not be so in all cases.

As you may be aware, something similar occurred in the “B. Atlantic” (Atlasnavios v Navigators and others 2014) case. In that case, wages of crew were claimed under the sue and labour clause. As everyone here will appreciate, Clause 16 of ITC, Hulls, opens in similar terms to Clause 15 dealing with Bottom Treatment: “No claim shall be allowed, other than in general average, for the wages and maintenance of Master, Officers and Crew ....” (and then the bit on removal).

In the “B. Atlantic” case, Flaux J commented as follows: “However, I agree with Mr Schaff QC that those provisions are dealing with cases of partial loss or particular average, not with claims under the supplementary engagement in relation to sue and labour and do not preclude the recovery of crew wages .... which have been incurred in averting or minimising the loss .... On the face of it, therefore, those expenses were sue and labour expenses.” I think many of us were under the impression that the exclusion of crew wages under Clause 16 meant “what it said on the tin”. Whilst not such a “basic instinct” issue, “Brillante Virtuoso” also gave rise to a rather interesting issue relating to loss of hire. The point in question was whether an owner can recover under a loss of hire policy when the vessel is damaged, but the owner does not carry out repairs within 12 months or indeed at all.

15

Annual Report 2015

This aspect of the judgement is not entirely straightforward because the vessel was held to be a CTL (and therefore no claim could be made under the loss of hire policy). It was therefore not entirely necessary for the court to consider the point, but as it had been fully argued, it was considered. In short, Flaux J concluded: “Those words demonstrate that, whilst it was a condition of the application of the loss of hire insurance in that case that there should be damage covered by the hull policy which required repair, it was not an additional condition that the repairs should actually have been carried out. In other words, in my judgment the wording of that proviso should, as in the present case, lead to the conclusion that loss of hire cover was available in a case of unrepaired partial loss”.

Elsewhere in the judgement he also stated: “Where there are no repairs, either because the vessel was not damaged (as in the case of detention) or because (as in the present case) the claim under the policy is an unrepaired damage claim within section 69(3), then there is no requirement by virtue of the proviso or otherwise to carry out repairs for the loss of hire insurance to be effective. If the intention had been to exclude loss of hire cover where there was an unrepaired damage claim within section 69(3), it seems to me LPO454 would have expressly said so, in the same way as clause 2 expressly excludes loss of hire cover in case of total loss.”

The conditions in question, LPO454, are of course Loss of Charter Hire Insurance including War (ABS 1/10/83 wording). In the particular case of “Brillante Virtuoso”, I am sure that the Court is correct. However, it should be borne in mind that in many cases where there is damage to the ship and that damage is unrepaired, there can be no claim under the loss of hire policy. There is nothing esoteric or clever about this. It is for the simple reason that the vessel has not been prevented from earning hire.

In “Brillante Virtuoso” the vessel was quite clearly prevented from earning hire as a result of the casualty, but interestingly no particular emphasis seems to have been given to this aspect. Perhaps the facts spoke for themselves. However, I suspect there are few people in this room who have adjusted an unrepaired damage claim on a loss of hire policy.

An interesting point concerning loss of hire claims may however arise when vessels are sold in an unrepaired state. The sale price achieved may not only reflect a deduction for the estimated cost of repairs, but also an additional financial deduction to reflect the time required to effect such repairs. Does this give rise to a valid “unrepaired damage claim” under the loss of hire policy? Does it pass the “prevented from earning” test? Something for another day.

Staying with issues arising from the “Brillante Virtuoso”, in this case, the net sale proceeds of the vessel were said to be US$672,000. The judgment records that: “The owners’ intention then and since was and has remained that the sale proceeds would be accounted for to the insurers in the event that they paid a claim for a CTL under the policy.” There is perhaps nothing in that statement that would trouble most claims practitioners and instinctively one would say that on payment of a CTL, hull insurers are entitled to the net sale proceeds of the vessel. But is this correct? On what basis are hull insurers entitled to such proceeds? When pushed to give an answer, most of us tend to mumble something about it being a basic principle of indemnity or that it avoids an over indemnity. However, it may be prudent to think further on this issue, which was touched upon by Tomlinson LJ in his Chairman’s address in 2011.

He commented: “It follows in my view that if when paying for a CTL underwriters say to their assured without more ‘we elect not to exercise our right to take over your interest in the vessel’ they will thereby deprive themselves of any entitlement to the residual value of the vessel. Whether the assured thereafter repairs the vessel and retains it in his own service or sells it to a third party, the underwriters have renounced any interest in the residual value of the vessel, however measured. They have no further entitlement.” His words were said in an English clauses context. By contrast, it is my broad understanding that under the Nordic Plan, when an assured claims for a CTL (or, in terms of the Plan, when there is a “request for condemnation”) it is assumed that interest and rights in the vessel pass to hull insurers at the time of payment/agreement. If insurers do not want the vessel, they have to say so. If they say they do not want it, they have

no entitlement to the scrap proceeds. Why would the position be different here? If Tomlinson LJ is correct, perhaps it is not.

Interestingly, the point raised by Tomlinson LJ does not seem to have given rise to too much consternation in the market. Perhaps this is because to some extent the position can be dealt with by reaching agreement at the time of settling the CTL claim that the net proceeds or residual value of the vessel shall be paid to insurers. In theory, this should deal with the issue, but as was indicated by Tomlinson LJ in his address, the extent to which insurers can control the process of realising proceeds in a practical sense may be somewhat restricted if they have not taken over the interest of the assured.

I have rattled on quite a lot about “basic instincts” or “gut reactions” almost to the point that it may seem that a practitioners’ response is some kind of primal sense or something that developed in the womb. It is, of course, nothing of the sort. It is the outcome of hard won commercial experience and what is believed to be the correct application of principles to claims, plus a fairly well honed ability to grasp and understand context.

In this market, as well as many others, there is a considerable collective wisdom which is the outcome of generations of practical claims handling after all, this is what we and our forebears have been engaged in on a daily basis. The courts are, to some extent, at a disadvantage in this respect. An issue comes before them and they have to give effect to the wording of a commercial agreement one way or another based upon the evidence and argument: yes or no; right or wrong; black or white. They may not necessarily fully appreciate the impact of a decision on, say, an obscure point under the sue and labour clause and how this may affect other aspects of claims under a hull policy. Nor do they get the opportunity to reach a decision that may be a murky grey, or what practitioners may call “a compromise”. As I indicated at the start of this address (which is starting to seem like a previous lifetime), practitioners tend to think in terms of the wider impact of whatever is being proposed.

Another feature of marine claims used to be how few cases actually finished up in the courts. Whether this was simply luck or whether it was the result of experienced claims practitioners resolving issues at an earlier stage, I really do not know. However, we do seem to be going through one of those phases where more marine claims related disputes are coming before the courts.

This Association has, to a considerable extent, played its part in terms of practical claims handling by introducing various Rules of Practice and I believe this has helped considerably in reaching a market consensus in terms of the treatment of certain practical claims issues. However, perhaps more is now required.

We are all aware that at a certain point in time, recruitment may have taken a bit of a back seat position. We still have quite a few old grey hairs around and much effort is being made to attract younger people to those professions that are engaged in marine claims handling and adjusting. However, we seem to have far less folk than we used to that fall between these two extremes. There are, of course, a number of very able market practitioners that could be defined as (or may be nearing) “middle age”. However, overall the numbers have fallen and, to some extent, we may be living off the family silver. This means that there is considerable pressure on younger professionals to study and acquire knowledge and expertise at a far faster rate than what was required of most of us when we were their age.

What to do? Here in London, we do not have what is perhaps an advantage that our Nordic friends have with their major commentary to the Nordic Plan. I believe the commentary performs a crucial role in explaining how claims matters are dealt with on a day to day basis without the need for recourse to a “higher” level. However, producing a commentary for ITC, AIHC, and all the other policy conditions on which hull insurance is written in London, is far too much of an undertaking even if felt desirable.

However, perhaps claims guidelines would be useful or even perhaps some form of claims council or forum. I believe that when it comes to revisions to the Nordic Plan, there is a standing revision committee comprising representatives of insurers, shipowners, adjusters and academics. This must be hugely valuable. Perhaps a claims council here could be of similar value. It might consist of claims professionals from insurers, shipowners, brokers, average adjusters, lawyers and possibly even P&I representatives (we might skip the

Annual Report 2015

16

academics). It could meet periodically to consider claims issues and the practical repercussions of legal decisions and whether policy terms require amending, new wordings produced or whether simply an issue was so obscure that it is unlikely to come up very often and therefore it can be left well alone. It might also consider issues that have been spotted on the horizon. I am a bit of an idealist and therefore I do feel that any claims council or market forum which, if possible, moves beyond protecting the interests of any particular group could be of greatest value. It is just an idea, but looking to the future, I do feel it is something that is worth considering further.

I think I have said pretty much enough today. Thank you for your attention. Before we all leave, I would like to convey my heartfelt thanks to an experienced female market colleague. Whilst the title or the subject of the Chairman’s Address is normally kept secret I did, in a moment of weakness, disclose that the title was “Basic Instinct”. She very kindly offered to sit in the front row and re enact that Sharon Stone moment as she put it, “if you think that might help”.

Unfortunately, whilst this Association has modernised itself to a great extent, it probably has not gone quite that far. In answer to her question, “Would it help”, probably not in terms of delivering this address. However, it would probably have made this morning’s experience far more memorable. Thank you very much and I look forward to seeing you all this evening. (Applause)

MS. A. WAITE: Before I invite comments and questions from the floor, on behalf of the audience, Mr. Chairman, could I request your permission to publish the address?

THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, of course.

MS. A. WAITE: Would anyone have any questions or comments for our Chairman?

MR. M. HARVEY (Fellow, President, Association Mondiale de Dispacheurs): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I bring you, fellow Fellows and all members of the Association of Average Adjusters, greetings from AMD on this annual event. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on a most interesting and thought provoking address. Also, as a Fellow, I thank you for your very successful period of Chairmanship. On a personal level, I would also like to thank you for your hospitality last night.

I think that your address was particularly interesting and draws the very clear distinction between the position that we, as practitioners, take and maybe judges take. We are required to implement a degree of pragmatism in the way in which we deal with claims, but judges cannot.

I remember some years ago being hauled out of a cocktail party by two Lords of Appeal. They dragged me into a pub and said, “Well, Mr. Harvey, we understand that you have been a bit critical of our decision in ....”, whatever it was. I said, “Well, I did not have an axe to grind because I was not on either side of the dispute, but I thought it was surprising.” They said to me, “You have to remember that our job is to interpret the law. It does not necessarily mean that we agree with it.” I thought that was quite a telling statement.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Michael. I feel slightly better now! (Laughter)

MR. M. HARVEY: I also congratulate Andrew on his appointment as Chairman and wish him well for his forthcoming year. We look forward to welcoming him at the AMD General Assembly in Bath in September. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Michael.

MS. A. WAITE: Are there any other comments or questions?

MR. S. CAVALLO (Italian Association of Average Adjusters): Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate you on the excellent speech today and, overall, I wish to thank you for the great hospitality yesterday evening. It

Annual Report 2015

17

was a very nice evening. On behalf of the Italian Association of Average Adjusters, which I represent, and also including the representatives who are here today from brokers’ firms, lawyers etc., I wish you and all the members and Fellows of the Association the warmest greetings.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Stefano.

MS. A. WAITE: Are there any other comments?

MS. V. KOFOED (Nordic Association of Average Adjusters): I would like to thank you for the wonderful dinner last night with beautiful food, good entertainment and an amazing after party. Also, thank you for your address today. It was very interesting.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. S. RIBLE (Association of Average Adjusters of the United States and Canada): In reverse chronological order, I would like to thank you for your gut reaction to residuals, hire, sue and labour, bottom, madness, prudence, CTLs, ‘74 versus ‘94, Rules of Interpretation, Rule C, Rule A, York Antwerp Rules, numbered rules, Rule F, pirates, scuttlers, torpedoes hold on (Laughter) and I think it was, although I am not sure, accidental manslaughter and subliminal sex!

THE CHAIRMAN: Welcome to 20 minutes inside my head! (Laughter)

MS. A. WAITE: I have had a year of it! Are there any more comments from anyone?

MR. R. CLYNE (President, Maritime Law Association of the United States): I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the very practical remarks, which were delivered with clarity and some good humour. Also, I want to thank you for the wonderful dinner last night.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Bob.

MR. R. SARLL: (Counsel, 7 King’s Bench Walk): I would also like to congratulate on your very learned and amusing speech. I obviously cannot comment on the case of Longchamp as it is sub judice other than to make clear that I cannot personally take credit for the idea as my instructions have come from elsewhere. I nevertheless point out that your speech is very likely to be put forward to the Lord Justices of Appeal and I hope they enjoy your jokes about Basic Instinct as much as I have.

THE CHAIRMAN: If I had any idea! Thank you very much, Richard.

MS. A. WAITE: Is there anyone else?

MR. R. AGGERSBURY: (Mediterranean Average Adjusting Company): I had the honour of finalising the adjustment for Longchamp and signing it. I would like to remind you that with regard to Rule C and the problems we are considering today, you should go back to the word “intentional”. It is an intentional act on the part of a shipowner to delay the vessel. I think that removes your question on Rule C.

THE CHAIRMAN: I was only concerned with the conflict between Rule F and Rule C. Is the word “intentional” in there? I am slightly confused.

MR. R. AGGERSBURY: It is in Rule A, but any act in general average has to be intentional

THE CHAIRMAN: I told you it was just my own confusion.

MR. R. AGGERSBURY: It is just to remember it.

THE CHAIRMAN: I will make a note!

Annual Report 2015

18

MR. R. AGGERSBURY: Although it is sub judice at the moment, I am willing to take a bet that the judgment will succeed.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Robin.

MR. R. AGGERSBURY: Well done, anyway.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. A. WAITE: Are there any other comments from anyone? (No response) If not, we look forward very much to seeing you all at The Savoy this evening at 6.30 for 7.00 p.m. Please join me in thanking our Chairman once again. (Applause)

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. A. WAITE: The Meeting is officially closed.

Annual Report 2015

19

Annual Report 2015

20

Fellows 2015Ahern- 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

Cameron- Gordon M (1986) Poseidon Adjusters (Singapore) Pte Ltd., Singapore Tel: +65 6333 4044 Email: gordon@posadj.com.sg

Cao- Jie Matthew (2015) Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2527 3202 Email: matthew.cao@rhl-ctc.com

Chiu- Benson K K (1992) Richards Hogg Lindley Group Ltd, Hong Kong Tel: +852 2399 6188 Email: benson.chiu@rhl-ct.com

Clancey- David C (1978) Marine Adjusting Solutions, Herts, UK Tel: +44 7785 312 443 Email: david.clancey@marineadjustingsolutions.com

Cole- Douglas A (1979) Consultant, Kent, UK Tel: +44 1892 534 276 Email: cole-d1@sky.com

Cornah- Richard R (1984) Richards Hogg Lindley Group Ltd, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: richard.cornah@rhl-ct.com

Duncan- J Miles (1977) Richards Hogg Lindley Group Ltd, 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 9070 Email: gerald.ewing@rmml.com

Fischer- Burkhard P (2000) Albatross Adjusters Ltd, Limassol, Cyprus Tel: +357 2558 8988 Email: b.fischer@alba.com.cy

Harvey- Michael D (1978) Harvey Ashby Ltd, Essex, UK Tel: +44 1206 689 500 Email: hal@harvey-ashby.co.uk

Jani- Madhusudan K (1961) Jani, Clancey & Richards, Mumbai, India Tel: +91 22 201 4602/0600 Email: madhusudanjani0202@gmail.com

Jones- Keith (1984) Aon Risk Solutions, London, UK Tel: +44 207 086 4219 Email: keith.jones@aon.co.uk

Kilbee- Chris C (1987) Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore Tel: +65 6438 4016 Email: chris@marineclaimsoffice.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 1920 7265 2020 Email: timmadge@medav.co.uk

Martin- Keith J (1990) Marsh Ltd, London, UK Tel: +44 207 357 2093 Email: keith.martin@marsh.com

Miller- Tristan E L (2014) Harvey Ashby Ltd, Essex, UK Tel: +44 1206 689 500 Email: tmiller@harvey-ashby.co.uk

Mody- Leena (2002) Leena Mody & Associates, Mumbai, India Tel: +91 22 2506 5090 Email: leena@leenamody.com

Fellows 2015 (continued)O’Neill – Amy (2013) Richards Hogg Lindley, Liverpool, UK Tel: +44 151 227 2175 Email: amy.o'neill@rhl-ctc.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, London, UK Tel: +44 207 709 0105 Email: andrew.paton@ct-plc.com

Richards- Willum (1992) Willum Richards Consulting Ltd, Central Otago, New Zealand Tel: +64 443 5134 Email: willum.richards@wrconsulting.co.nz

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 Group Ltd, 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-ctc.com

Silver- Paul (1986) Richards Hogg Lindley Group Ltd, London, UK Tel: +44 207 015 2046 Email: paul.silver@rhl-ct.com

Sturges- Keith V (1990) Richards Hogg Lindley, London, UK Tel: +44 207 015 2008 Email: keith.sturges@rhl-ct.com

Tang- Christopher Y C (1982) Asia Maritime Adjusting Pte Ltd Tel: +65 6223 3111 Email: tangcnw@gmail.com

Tucker- R Ian (1992) Maritime Adjusting Services, London, UK Tel: +44 207 256 7659 Email: ian.tucker@maritimeadjusters.com

Wong- Raymond T C (1980) T C Wong Average Consulting Ltd, Hong Kong Tel: +852 9265 9199 Email: raymond.wong@averageadj.com

Wood- Richard W (1986) Richards Hogg Lindley Inc., Texas, USA Tel: +1 713 862 4290 Email: richard.wood@signal-ct.com

Xu Yibing (2008) Richards Hogg Lindley, Hong Kong Tel: + 852 2399 6148 Email: yibing.xu@rhl-ct.com

Annual Report 2015

21

Non-Practising FellowsMartin- John (2000)

Starmans- Michael LAA (2001)

Associate Members as at May 2015

Agfaransyah Mufli Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama) IndonesiaAngelis George Braemar Technical Services Inc USABailas Panagiotis Marine Adjusting Solutions Ltd GreeceBarker Mark Skuld Services Ltd UKBell Daniel Angus Royal Sun Alliance UKBrooks Richard Norton Rose Fulbright UKCardy Jonathan Lloyd Stichling Hahn Hilbrich GmbH GermanyCarey Ed Navigators Group Inc UKChakos Vasilios V Chakos & Co Marine Claims Adjusters & Consultants GreeceChen Hung Yi Charles Taylor Adjusting TaiwanContreras Isabel DNV GL Noble Denton UAECoop Derek Paul Tri-Marine Acceptances (Pty) Ltd South AfricaDallaway Amy Antares Managing Agency UKDauksas Lukas Limarko Shipping Company AB LithuaniaDeClercq Cedric Catlin Singapore Pte.Ltd SingaporeDing Alan (Hailong) Huatai Insurance Company ChinaDrakatou Pippi Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. GreeceEdwards Donna Howden Insurance Brokers Ltd UKEffendi Fahrizal PT. MCO Prima Indonesia IndonesiaEllis Jack Willis Ltd UKExadaktylos Dimitios National Insurance Brokers S.A. GreeceFei Peter Xiao Ming Richards Hogg Lindley ChinaFielding Mats Skuld Hellas Ltd GreeceFox Rachel Richards Hogg Lindley UKFukahori Rumi Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc JapanGautama Mukesh Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt Ltd IndiaGersok Paul Campbell Shipping Ltd BahamasGibbins Daniel Keith Blue Seas Adjusters Ltd UKGibbs Benjamin Richards Hogg Lindley UKGilchrist Iain NEPIA UKGougouli Kallina Pacific Intermediaries & Consultants UKGreene Alexander James Miller Insurance UKGwon Evan (Jin Hyun) Korea Shipping Association Republic of KoreaHales Jenna QBE UKHao Rui Richards Hogg Lindley ChinaHara Nanami Richards Hogg Lindley JapanHarwood Alexandra Marsh UK

Annual Report 2015

22

Honorary Fellows

Prof. Francesco BerlingieriThe Rt. Hon. Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-EbonyMr Julian CookeThe Rt. Hon. Sir Anthony EvansMr Justice FlauxMr Jonathan Gilman QCThe Hon. Mr Justice HamblenMr N Geoffrey HudsonMr Charles Hebditch Mr Anthony J KerseyThe Rt. Hon. Lord Lloyd of Berwick

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice ManceThe Rt. Hon. Lord Phillips of Worth MatraversThe Hon. Lord Justice RixThe Rt. Hon. Lord Saville of NewdigateSir David SteelMr Roger C Street Mr David W TaylorThe Hon Mr Justice TeareThe Rt. Hon. Lord Justice TomlinsonMr D John Wilson

Associate Members (continued)

Heng Vanessa Sok Koon Richards Hogg Lindley Singapore SingaporeHerrity Stacey Richards Hogg Lindley UKHubbuck Jeremy W.R. Berkley Insurance Norway NUF NorwayHui Wang Japan P&I Club SingaporeJackson Aimee Marketform Managing Agency Limited UKJagannath Muthu NAU Pte Ltd SingaporeJani Amit M Jani, Clancey & Richards IndiaJie Shao Charles Taylor Adjusting ChinaJohannessen Alf Inge Gard AS NorwayKallini Angeliki Richards Hogg Lindley (Hellas) Ltd GreeceKaneko Yasuhiro Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc. JapanKemp Alex Holman Fenwick Willan LLP UKKilbee James Marine Claims Office of Asia SingaporeKrivovs Daniils SBM Offshore FranceKumar Rajeev BP Singapore Pte Ltd SingaporeLai William TC Wong Average Consulting Ltd ChinaLevantis Alexandros Levmar Engineering GreeceLevendal Adriaan Zurich Financial Services Australia Limited AustraliaLiboshi Yuta Sompa Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc JapanLiu Jiadai Adele Charles Taylor Adjusting (Hong Kong) ChinaLloyd Amy The Channel Managing Agency UKLynskey Mark Ian ARB International Ltd UKMackenzie Andrew Marsh Services Ltd UKMagkanaris Stelios The Swedish Club Piraeus GreeceManohara Bernadette Angelita Kanya Charles Taylor Adjusting IndonesiaMartinez Gonzalez Alejandro Charles Taylor Adjusting MexicoMavroudi Maria Irini Shipowners Claims Bureau (Hellas) Inc GreeceMcArthur Bradleigh-Aaron RK Harrison Insurance Brokers Ltd UKMcCabe Phillip Mark Charles Taylor Adjusting UKMing Fai Ho (Jason) Richards Hogg Lindley ChinaMonahan Claire Antares Underwriting UKNaqvi Syed Ali Asif Milverk (PVT) Ltd PakistanNg Fang Yao Raetsasia P&I Services Pte Ltd SingaporeOsborne Debbie XL Group UKOtmar Melis BMS Harris & Dixon Marine UKPanter Georgie Barbican Insurance UKPoojary Rathna Sudarshan Jani, Clancey & Richards IndiaQian Luo Ricards Hogg Lindley ChinaQuito Liliana Zurich Global Corporate UK UKRallatos Nikolas Index Limited GreeceRappal Varrier Manoj BP Singapore Pte Ltd SingaporeReeder Kelly Merkel International UKRen He ChinaRobinson Heather Rosemary Richards Hogg Lindley UKRobinson Matthew Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Ltd UKRowe Nicholas George Edward Richards Hogg Lindley UKRowe Steven James Richards Hogg Lindley UKSaputro Bagus Charles Taylor Adjusting IndonesiaSarll Richard 7 Kings Bench Walk UKSasegbon Deji Richards Hogg Lindley UKSawamura Satoshi The Japan Shipowners Mutual P&I Association Japan

Annual Report 2015

23

Annual Report 2015

24

Associate Members (continued)

Setyorini Maurene Ayu Charles Taylor Adjusting IndonesiaShead Joseph Richards Hogg Lindley UKShichino Kohtaroh Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance Inc. JapanSitompul Andrea Nathaly Charles Taylor Adjusting IndonesiaSlade Andrew Radita Hutama Internusa IndonesiaSmith Matthew James Alan Marsh Ltd UKSoejoso Andriyanto Charles Taylor Adjusting (PT Radita Hutama) IndonesiaStenman Dencker Caroline The Swedish Club SwedenStewart Darren JLT Speciality Ltd UKSymes Matthew AON Group Ltd UKTaguchi Masakazu Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Co JapanThim Ching Weng Marine Claims Office of Asia Pte Ltd SingaporeThompson John Richards Hogg Lindley UKTomlinson Robert Miles Philip Richards Hogg Lindley UKTuli Rohit BP Singapore Pte Ltd SingaporeVan Wingerden Anne Spliethoff NetherlandsWang Ina SDV (Ltd) UK UKWarr Charlotte Jane Sarnia Training Ltd UKWheatley Alex P Richards Hogg Lindley UKWhittle Adam Charles Taylor Adjusting UKWijenayake Dilip Cunningham Lindsey AustraliaWilkie Graham Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance UKWillan James Richards Hogg Lindley Group UKYamaguchi Sanae Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Co. Ltd JapanYang Betty (Shu-Ting) Wisdom Marine Lines TaiwanYeung Ka Yi Catlin HK ChinaYoules-Fitzgerald Madonna Liberty International Underwriters AustraliaZachopoulou Effie UKZhou Weiyan W K Webster & Co UK

Representative Members as at May 2015

BIMCOC Solutions LtdInternational Salvage UnionInternational Underwriters AssociationLloyd’s Market AssociationLondon Offshore Consultants LtdMarint (Offshore Services) LtdResolve Salvage & Fire (Europe) LtdSmit Salvage BVStandard Steamship Owners P&I Association (Europe) LtdThe Britannia Steam Ship Insurance Association LtdThe Society of Consulting Marine Engineers & Ship SurveyorsW K Webster & CoXL London Market Services

Subscribers

Afub Adedoyin NigeriaAggersbury Robin C UKAllsworth James Edward UKAndika Putra IndonesiaAndrewartha E Jane UKAsbury Michael L UKAskins Stephen UKAstrand Johan SwedenBarthett Maria Borg UKBatini Alberto UKBeesley Clive ChinaBell Michael K USABenekis Ioannis UKBerg Frode NorwayBernstein Eliezer UKBerridge Anthony G UKBertoli Luigi UKBetancourt Ronald USABetbeze Jaime USABiancofiore Alberto UKBierlich Horst SwedenBlackburn Julie UKBoehmer Olivier Netherlands Booth Forrest USABorz Laura NorwayBourlaki Christina UKBrain Anthony E CanadaBriem Gardar IcelandBrooks Philip Schoen USABrosnan Isabel UKBrown Hugh M UAEBrowne Benjamin C UKBru Roncallo Javier Alfredo PanamaBruce Jonathan UKBuhl Delia USABurdass Tom R B UKBycroft Geoff UKCalabria Marco ItalyCallaghan Maureen UKCamera Guglielmo ItalyCanepa Massimo ItalyCannie Patrick UAECarpenter Nigel D SingaporeCatlow Paul UKCavallo Stefano ItalyChairul Zulfiandri IndonesiaChalakkaran Rendith BahrainChandrasekaran Sri Lakshmi Priya SingaporeChapman James L USAChattopadhyay Chiranjob S UAEChaudry Muhammad Iqbal UK

Chow Yuk Yi Cory ChinaClark Nigel UKClark Julian James UKClarke Arthur K UKClift N Rhys UKColeman Nicholas Mark NorwayConner Alfred UKCross James F UKCrowhurst Jason UKCulley Marcia L USAPaul Cunningham UKDamkjaer Kurt Rye DenmarkDeGiulio Frank P USADiaz Aladar Rodriguez PanamaDickie Paul UKDijkstra Lars NetherlandsDillon Shaun Michael UKDomanski Roman UKDorling Chris C UKDrege Ronaldo CyprusDubbioso Francesco ItalyDupuis Robert Jean NetherlandsEikanger Ole Jorgan NorwayEldridge Ronald K CanadaEvans Jonathan Owain UKExadactylos Anthony GreeceFarmer Chris UKFedorowicz Janusz BelgiumFellin Eileen USAFenwick Victor UKFerguson-Gow N J A UKFernandez Charles J V UKFielder Anthony R GreeceFinckenhagen Knut M NorwayFitzhugh Thomas C USAFlori Gianluca ItalyFoss Patrick UKFranseth Kaare NorwayFraser Ian CanadaFraser Marion Susan UKGabel George D USAGalvan Angel SpainGatti Angelo ItalyGersok Paul BahamasGill Paul A IrelandGolding Maureen K P UKGoodacre Stephen B UKGosling James Christopher UKGoveas Ivor BelgiumGrafton Maria UKGran Philip USA

Annual Report 2015

25

Annual Report 2015

26

Subscribers (continued)

Grasso Joseph G USAGray Martin W GreeceGrecoussis Gerry GreeceGreen Edward I UKGreene James F GreeceGrepne Harald E NorwayGrieveson Chris UKGroninger Joern Martin GermanyGroninger Philip Ole Germany Gulawita Nadeesh Anuranga AustraliaGunn Richard UKGuttula Vijay UAEHahn Juergen C GermanyHall Martin UKHamataka Sayuri UKHamilton Andrew William UKHansson Harald SwedenHawkins Neil R UKHaycock Simon UKHenriksson Johan L P SwedenHicks John W UKHildrew Alan G UKHill Paul UKHo Kyle (Chih Chieh) TaiwanHornish David S USAHowell Peter M GreeceHubbuck Jeremy Norway Howse Tim UKHudson John T UKHumphreys Terence UKIreland Jim UKJackson Graham W UKJackson Simon UKJani Nitika Amit IndiaJanssen Dirk GermanyJeon Sora UKJingjing Chang SingaporeJoannou Andrew P UKJohnston Alistair UKJones Andrew GreeceJones David R UKJones Peter E UKKakamoukas Vasilios GreeceKaraloizou Costas CyprusKardiakopoulos Dimitris GreeceKauffeld Tilmann SwedenKay Alexander GermanyKendel Kitty NorwayKennard Darryl UKKim Chang-Hyun Rep. of KoreaKnudtzon Stephen Norway

Kochhar Vishesh S IndiaKoelzer James P USAKofoed Vibeke DenmarkKonig Rudolf UKKoukouli Joanna GreeceKouliga Maria GreeceKowalewsky Erik M USAKromhout Jan NetherlandsKruit Johanna Apollonia NetherlandsKumar M Suresh IndiaKverndal QC Simon UKLangeland Kaare UKLangeland Truls NorwayLawrence Stewart John UKLech Anne Glestad NorwayLegat Paola ItalyLerigo Steve UKLevantis Konstantinos GreeceLibretto Keri UKLillie John S UKLillis John USALin Bei Sheng ChinaLloyd Mark Andrew UKLong Sharon UKLucking Michelle UKLugg Kevin M UKLuukas Ray UKLux Jonathan S UKLuxford Derek Anthony AustraliaMacinnes Alex UKMacIntyre John Stuart UKMaclean Ian UKMacrow Andy G UKMajumder Sumit Kumar India Makestad Sveinung NorwayMarayil Om Prakash UAEMargaritopoulos George GreeceMargetis George GreeceMartinez Alex UKMartinoli Federico ItalyMathisen Morten Lund NorwayMcCabe Matthew S UKMcCall Orawan ThailandMcCarthy Stephen UKMcCauley Michael B USAMcDonach Tony UKMcGurran Mark SingaporeMcLauchlan Peter USAMcMenamin George H UKMeidell Andreas NorwayMellett Peter UK

Subscribers (continued)

Metcalf Frank CanadaMilliken William B USAMinter Trevor H UKMolina Quimi Paul EcuadorMonioudis Dimitris UKMoore Donald USAMowat Ian Andrew UKMuller Peter NetherlandsMunkeby Oyvind NorwayMurphy Eamonn UKMurphy Lauren UKMusolino Pino BelgiumMutter Nigel Glenister UKNakada Eiichi JapanNesheim Andreas NorwayNesse Bente Wilk NorwayNesse Hogne NorwayNoble John UKNootbaar Thomas USAO'Brien Greg CanadaOgadina Monday NigeriaO'Keeffe Joseph UKOland Andrew Barry CanadaOlivari Paolo ItalyOlofsson Martin SwedenOlsen Stephen A USAOrlando Michael A USAOsmotherly Phil UKOstbye Eli-Kristin NorwayPapaioannu Theodoro Andrea ItalyPell Louise UKPereira Rucemah L G BrazilPhelps Alan IndonesiaPhillips Nevil UKPhippard Ralph GreecePing Lim Siew SingaporePinto Alexandre Richard SingaporePoliseno Marco ItalyPoulson John USAPriano Gian Piero ItalyPusiak David UKReed John UKReischer Johanna USARenton Alan Howard UKRevell Richard UKRible Stephen USARoderick Michael Christopher UKRodriguez Antonio J USARolland Adam W F CanadaRomeijnders Johan G A NetherlandsRosenfeld Lars Norway

Ross Duncan UKRoumanou Julia GreeceRudek Lars-Uwe GermanyRue Thomas S USARyles Howard UKSabaroedin Justisia IndonesiaSandbakken Einar NorwaySanden Roar NorwaySaraswati Rininta IndonesiaSchoutens A C G NetherlandsSegarra Jonathan USAShigematsu Toru JapanShindo Mei JapanShionozaki Hitoshi JapanSiemens Jan-Andresen GermanySilvester Michael UKSim Rudi Kong Juan MalaysiaSkeppland Jeanette NorwaySlaatten Bjorn NorwaySmeulders Gregory GreeceSmith Claire UKSmith Robert Mark UKSpencer Jonathan S USASporle David Phillip UKSteemers Michael W CyprusStella Gesata IndonesiaStephens Toby UKStewart Susan UKStone Richard W USAStreet Gordon P UKSydenham Chris UKSystad Anne NorwayTaher Maryam UKTakahashi Iku JapanTamesue Nobuki JapanTampubolon Guntur IndonesiaTantrum David J USATatham Simon R UKTaylor Timothy WS UKTerrell Martin SingaporeThoresen Bernt NorwayTirel John E USATorjussen Dag Magne NorwayTreacy Ian UKTribe Peter UKTsakirian Mardyros GreeceTsakiris Ilias P GreeceTufta Oivind NorwayTufta Olav NorwayUmeno Koji JapanValenti Alessandro Italy

Annual Report 2015

27

Annual Report 2015

Subscribers (continued)

van der Houven van Oordt Haco Netherlandsvan der Valk Taco Netherlandsvan Rossum-Overkleeft Marjan Liesbeth NetherlandsVanDamme Tanja BelgiumVarno Klaus NorwayVennerod Atle NorwayVerhagen Marcel NetherlandsVidringstad Sverre NorwayVijay Guttula IndiaVirvilis Isabella UKWahler Kathleen USAWaite Ann D UKWake Hideke JapanWalker Allison UKWalsh David UKWalster Alexander GermanyWardle Malcolm R UKWarr Stephen William UK

Warrender Nichola UKWaterfall Joanna UKWatson Harold K USAWattel Markwin NetherlandsWebb Colin Donald UKWheeler Darren UKWhelan Richard Q USAWhite J Ralph USAWhyte Gordon UKWidebeck Magnus SwedenWilson James Robert Kennedy UKWolf Martina GermanyWong Summer SingaporeWoods John M USAWright James UKZampichelli Giovanni ItalyZavos Christopher Spyros UKZinke Jon W China

28

Past Chairmen

May/Nov 1869 Mr T L DAVISONNov 1869/May 1870 Mr Wm HARRISONMay/Nov 1870 Mr L R BAlLYNov 1870/May 1871 Mr Wm RICHARDSMay/Nov 1871 Mr RICHARD LOWNDESNov 1871/May 1872 Mr RICHARD LOWNDES1873 Mr RICHARD LOWNDES1874 Mr J H POWELL1875 Mr MANLEY HOPKINS1876 Mr T L DAVISON1877 Mr WILLIAM RICHARDS1878 Mr GEORGE COYTE1879 Mr ROBERT LINDLEY1880 Mr LAURENCE R BAlLY1881 Mr WILLIAM H JONES1882 Mr EDWARD HOGG1883 Mr CHARLES McARTHUR1884 Mr HENRY DAVISON1885 Mr SAMUEL SMITH1886 Mr PHILIP H RATHBONE1887 Mr SAMUEL CROSS1888 Mr K W ELMSLIE1889 Mr H C JEPPS1890 Mr ISAAC W COURT1891 Mr GEORGE LIDGETT1892 Sir F C DANSON1893 Mr T G CARVER1894 Mr T S COOKES1895 Mr JOHN S ALLEN

1896 Mr W E TOWERS1897 Mr WALTER LOWNDES1898 Sir DOUGLAS OWEN, K.B.E.1899 Mr ARTHUR LINDLEY1900 Mr A H MAY1901 Mr WILLIAM RICHARDS, C.B.E.1902 The Hon Mr Justice GORELL BARNES1903 Mr M G TOWERS1904 Mr E R LINDLEY1905 Mr F C DALE1906 The Hon Mr Justice KENNEDY1907 Mr M A RUDELL, C.B.E.1908 Mr J B WALLACE1909 Mr T R MILLER1910 Mr J S HOGG1911 Mr F T LOFTUS1912 Mr J HERBERT SCRUTTON1913 Mr MARTIN DALE1914 Mr C W HENZELL1915 The Right Hon Viscount MERSEY1916 Mr B T HARLAND1917 Mr G S LLOYD DAVIES1918 Mr A W DAUGLISH1919 Mr AD MacKINNON1920 Sir THOMAS J STOREY, K.B.E.1921 Mr HOWARD B HURD1922 Mr H T LINDLEY1923 The Right Hon Viscount SUMNER, G.C.E.1924 Mr G R RUDOLF

Annual Report 2015

29

Past Chairmen (continued)

1925 Mr J D BARKER1926 Mr A H WATTS1927 The Right Hon Lord MERRIVAl.E1928 Mr A C SMITH1929 Lt-Col D COOKES, D.S.O.1930 Mr F E VAUGHAN1931 The Hon Mr Justice ROCHE1932 Mr H E MAY1933 Mr H W LINDL Y1934 Mr C E FOX1935 The Hon Mr Justice MacKINNON1936 Mr E R LINDLEY1937 Mr E E MOORE1938 Mr G O HENZELL, M.C.1939 The Right Hon Lord WRIGHT1940 Mr G F ELMSLIE1941 Mr C T ELLIS, M.C.1942 Mr E W READING, M.C.1943 Mr P R BENNETT, B.L.1944 The Right Hon Lord PORTER1945 Mr C BARRY COOPER1946 Mr J R DANSON, M.A., M.C.1947 Mr Wm RICHARDS, C.B.E.1948 Mr W D WATTLEWORTH1949 Mr J T WALKER, M.C.1950 The Hon Mr Justice PILCHER, M.C.1951 Mr F G HOGG, T.D.1952 Mr G J B EDGE1953 Mr DAWSON R MILLER1954 Mr GEORGE ERIC TOWERS1955 Mr DENNIS D B JOHNSON, O.B.E., B.Com.1956 Mr D V MOORE1957 Mr W T WOOD1958 The Right Hon Lord Justice SELLERS, M.C.1959 Mr M H DOWNES1960 Mr S G CHUBB1961 Mr J H LLOYD DAVIES1962 Mr A J FINLASON, M.C.1963 Mr R H ARNOLD1964 Mr C T GREENACRE1965 Mr R C CLANCEY, LL.B.1966 Mr N M GORDON1967 The Right Hon Lord DEVLIN, P.C.1968 Mr G R HESELTON1969 Mr J S CRUMP1970 Mr D L TOWERS

1971 Mr R A H ARNOLD1972 The Rt Hon Sir GORDON WILLMER, O.B.E., TD.1973 Mr N G HUDSON1974 Mr G H MAY1975 Mr D G MILBURN1976 Mr A B DANN, M.A., ].P1977 Mr C R D TOWERS1978 The Right Hon Lord Justice ROSKILL1979 Mr D C COOPER1980 Mr W P F BENNETT. MA1981 Mr J P DUKE1982 The Right Hon Lord Justice DONALDSON1983 Mr W RICHARDS1984 Mr R A STACEY1985 Mr G S HUGHES1986 Mr K V WOOD1987 The Hon Mr JUSTICE SHEEN1988 Mr D J WILSON1989 Mr A J BIRCH1990 Mr C S HEBDITCH, M.A.1991 Mr R W HIPKlN1992 Mr J S CRUMP1993 Mr J C ALLEN1994 Mr R R SMITH1995 Mr J A MacDONALD1996 Mr C .I BARSTOW, M.A.1997 The Right Hon Lord MUSTILL1998 Mr D M PANNELL1999 Mr D C CLANCEY2000 Mr J M DUNCAN, M.A.2001 Mr J M DUNCAN, M.A.2002 Mr T J W MADGE2003 Mr T J W MADGE2004 Mr D. W. TAYLOR2005 Mr MICHAEL D HARVEY2006 Mr NIGEL J C ROGERS2007 Mr NIGEL J C ROGERS2008 Mr RICHARD R CORNAH2009 Mr RICHARD R CORNAH2010 The Right Hon Mr Justice TOMLINSON2011 Mr JOHN R AHERN2012 Mr PAUL SILVER2013 Mr KEITH JONES2014 Mr KEITH JONES2015 Mr PAUL ROWLAND

Secretariat: RTI Ltd, International House, 1 St Katharine’s Way, London, E1W 1UNTel: +44 (0)20 7481 2150 Fax: +44 (0)20 7481 2149

Email: aaa@rtiforensics.com www.average-adjusters.com