Changes

'''Comment'''

The Supreme Court has in this case clarified the definition of “cost of repairing the damage” under s.60(2)(ii) of the 1906 Act for the purpose of determining whether a vessel is a constructive total loss. The financial implications of the court’s decision on the second issue in relation to the categorization of SCOPIC costs are significant. Whilst the court’s decision in this respect may be controversial, the court has spelled out clearly the rationale behind its decision: the reason why s.60(2)(ii) requires a comparison between the cost of the repairs and the value of the ship when repaired, is to determine whether the ship is financially worth repairing; as such, where the purpose of an expenditure has nothing to do with the subject matter insured, namely the hull, it is no part of the measure of the damage of the ship, and has nothing to do with the possibility of repairing her.