Page 35 - claims information pack ebook_e

Section 3: Guidelines on the submission of different types of claim

resource, such as a polluted fishing ground for losses resulting from the destruction
(for example whether a fisherman also of marine products or fishing or harvesting
exploits a nearby, unaffected fishing ground, bans are accepted if and to the extent that
or is able to exploit an alternative fishing such destruction or bans were reasonable.
ground to the one affected without being When assessing whether the destruction
economically disadvantaged). or a ban was reasonable, account is taken
of the following factors:
● The extent to which a claimant had
alternative sources of supply or business ● Whether the produce was contaminated.
opportunities (for example whether a fish
processor was able to find alternative ● The likelihood that the contamination would
disappear before the normal harvesting
sources of fish).
time.
● The extent to which a claimant’s business
● Whether the retention of the produce in the
forms an integral part of the economic
activity within the area affected by the spill water would prevent further production.
(for example whether a claimant’s business ● The likelihood that the produce would 33
is located or has assets in the affected area, be marketable at the time of normal
or provides employment harvesting.
for people living there).
3.3.8 Since the assessment of whether the
3.3.5 Experience shows that mortalities of wild destruction or ban was reasonable is based
fishery stocks arising from oil spills are on scientific and other evidence, it is important
very rare. However, if there is concern amongst that sampling and testing are carried out by
fishermen that mortalities have occurred then chemical analysis and for oil taste (taint).
they should contact the 1992 Fund or the P&I Samples from an area affected by the spill
Club (or where appropriate the designated (suspect samples) and control samples from
surveyor or local claims office) without delay a nearby stock or commercial outlet outside
so that a joint survey of the damaged resource the polluted area should be tested at the same
can be carried out. time. The two groups of samples should be of
3.3.6 Mortalities in mariculture stocks following equal numbers. In the case of taint testing, the
an incident are also rare, but if they do occur testers should not be able to identify whether
the claimant should document the loss by the sample being tasted is a suspect or a
preserving samples and taking photographic control sample (blind testing).
records to demonstrate the nature and extent
of the loss. Claimants are again advised to Presentation of claims
contact the 1992 Fund or the P&I Club (or 3.3.9 The assessment of claims for economic loss
where appropriate the designated surveyor in the fisheries, mariculture and processing
or local claims office) without delay so that sectors is, whenever possible, based on a
a joint survey of the damaged resource can comparison between the actual financial
be carried out. results during the claim period and those

3.3.7 If farmed fish or shellfish are destroyed, it is for previous periods, for example in the
important that scientific or other evidence form of audited accounts or tax returns of
in support of the destruction decision is the individual claimant for the three years
provided. The decision by a public authority before the incident. The assessment is not
to impose fishing or harvesting bans is not based on budgeted figures. The criterion is
considered as conclusive justification for whether the claimant’s business as a whole
destroying produce affected by a ban. Claims has suffered economic loss as a result of the
contamination. The purpose of examining ›