Carslogie steamship V Royal Norwegain 1952

From BPP:

The facts: A ship owned by the claimants was damaged as a result of the defendant’s negligence and
required repair. During the trip to the repair site the ship was caught in severe weather conditions that
resulted in additional damage being caused and therefore a longer repair time was required. The claimants
claimed loss of charter revenue for the period the ship was out of action for repairs caused by the original
incident.

Decision: The House of Lords held that the defendants were liable for loss of profit suffered as result of
the defendants’ wrongful act only. Whilst undergoing repairs, the ship ceased to be a profit-earning
machine as the weather damage had rendered her unseaworthy. The weather conditions created an
intervening act and the claimants had sustained no loss of profit due to the ship being out of action as it
would have been unavailable for hire anyway due to the weather damage.

My question:

Sir in this case as House of Lords held that ” the defendants were liable for loss of profit suffered as result of the defendants wrongful act only.” So defendants were liable na for loss caused to claimant as a result of their negligence ? And would defendant pay damages to claimant because of their wrongful act (negligence)?