We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Monday, 01 April 19
FORCE MAJEURE SUCCESS NOT A SEA CHANGE - BALTIC EXCHANGE
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
It is difficult to successfully argue that contractual performance has been prevented or delayed by force majeure. This is in part because English courts or arbitration tribunals will interpret these clauses strictly and narrowly against the party seeking to rely on them.
Recent decisions, including Triple Point Technology v PTT (2017) and Seadrill Ghana v Tullow Ghana (2018), are evidence of this approach. However, Sucden Middle-East, represented by Nick Fisher of HFW, has recently relied successfully on such a clause in the Commercial Court, on appeal from arbitration.
The case, Sucden Middle-East v Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi, “The Mv Muammer Yagci”, involved a shipment of sugar to Algeria on the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form. The facts found by the arbitral tribunal were that when the cargo arrived in Algeria, the cargo-receivers submitted false import documents to local customs authorities. The local customs responded by seizing the cargo, using powers under customs laws and regulations.
A delay to discharging the cargo of four and a half months ensued. Sucden, as charterers, claimed this delay fell within the exceptions to laytime running under clause 28. Owners disagreed. At first instance, the arbitral tribunal agreed with owners.
Charterers appealed to the Commercial Court. Permission to bring the appeal was given on the basis that the question of law was one of general public importance, as it related to a standard form contract in wide commercial usage.
The judgement
The question before the Commercial Court was: “Where a cargo is seized by the local customs authorities at the discharge port causing a delay to discharge, is the time so lost caused by ‘government interferences’ within the meaning of clause 28 of the Sugar Charter Party 1999 form?” Clause 28 reads:
“Strikes and Force Majeure
In the event that whilst at or off the loading place or discharging place the loading and/or discharging of the vessel is prevented or delayed by any of the following occurrences: strikes, riots, civil commotions, lockouts of men, accidents and/or breakdowns on railways, stoppages on railway and/or river and/or canal by ice or frost, mechanical breakdowns at mechanical loading plants, government interferences, vessel being inoperative or rendered inoperative due to terms and conditions of employment of the Officers and Crew, time so lost shall not count as laytime on demurrage or detention…”
In deciding whether a force majeure event had occurred, the Court focused on the construction of “government interferences”. It was fairly straightforward to establish that a government entity acting in a sovereign capacity was involved, but owners argued that the government being involved was not enough and that there had to be “interferences”. In reaching its decision that there had been no interference, the tribunal had considered it a key point that seizure was an “ordinary” action. The Court rejected this conclusion. It held that the seizure of the cargo was not routine and did fall within the meaning of “interferences”. Seizure is a significant exercise of executive power and therefore could not be regarded as “ordinary”. Suspected or predictable consequences are not the same as ordinary actions (such as the inspection of the cargo by a government surveyor): “In the usual course of things, cargo is not seized and property rights are not invaded in that way.” The very fact that false documents were involved showed that the circumstances were not routine.
The Court emphasised that it was of “real importance” that its conclusion on the language was not difficult to apply, nor did it in any way offend commercial common sense.
The owners’ causation argument was also dismissed, as it was held that the seizure caused the delay, even if the submission of false documents caused the seizure.
Further detail
In allowing the appeal, the Court still maintained the strict and narrow approach to force majeure, stressing that “the answer given to the question is only a narrow ‘yes’. It is ‘yes’ where the circumstances are as in the present case. The answer does not address all of the circumstances that may come within or fall outside clause 28. The answer is concerned only with the seizure of a cargo and with that seizure by a customs authority that is a State revenue authority acting in a sovereign capacity”.
This judgment gives some welcome publicly-available guidance on the interpretation of a force majeure clause in a standard form widely used in sugar trading. While the charterers were successfully able to rely on the force majeure clause in this case, it does not signal a change in the strict and narrow approach typically adopted by the English courts.
Source: Baltic Exchange
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Saturday, 17 July 21
COAL PRICES TRADE AT DECADE HIGH OF $140 PER TONNE, HERE ARE SOME FACTORS AT PLAY: CNBC-TV18
Coal prices are trading at $140 per tonne. In the last one week, coal has seen more than 8 percent gains; the last one month has seen 24 percent ju ...
Thursday, 15 July 21
U.S. FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION FELL BY 9% IN 2020, THE LOWEST LEVEL IN NEARLY 30 YEARS - EIA
U.S. fossil fuel consumption fell by 9% in 2020, the lowest level in nearly 30 years
In 2020, total consumption of fossil fuels in t ...
Thursday, 15 July 21
IN 2020, U.S. COAL PRODUCTION FELL TO ITS LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1965 - EIA
U.S. coal production totaled 535 million short tons (MMst) in 2020, a 24% decrease from the 706 MMst mined in 2019 and the lowest level of coal pro ...
Wednesday, 14 July 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
In its latest Global Economic Prospects report, the world bank recorded the strongest post-recession global growth in 80 years, but emerging and de ...
Tuesday, 13 July 21
JAPAN STILL SEEKING TO EXPLOIT COAL POWER LOOPHOLES - IEEFA
JBIC wants to continue burdening developing nations with its expensive coal-fired power technology
Japan is continuing to push its expensive c ...
|
|
|
Showing 521 to 525 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Australian Coal Association
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Minerals Council of Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- The University of Queensland
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Planning Commission, India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
