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, 26 June 21
KOSPO INVITED BIDS FOR 480,000 MT OF COAL PER ANNUM
COALspot.com: Korea Southern Power Co., Ltd. (KOSPO) has issued an International tender for total 480,000 MT of NCV 1 Min. 5,600 (Spec 1) /Min. 5,0 ...
Thursday, 24 June 21
FEBRUARY'S INCREASE IN COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC GENERATION REDUCED U.S. COAL STOCKPILES - EIA
Coal stockpiles at U.S. power plants decreased significantly from December 2020 to February 2021, including a draw of nearly 16 million tons in Feb ...
Wednesday, 23 June 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
The first half of 2021 has brought a very sharp and continued recovery in the dry bulk market and while many where expecting a relatively strong ma ...
Thursday, 17 June 21
2020 PROVED TO BE A TRULY TERRIBLE YEAR FOR GLOBAL SEABORNE COAL TRADE; CHINA'S COAL IMPORTS - BANCHERO COSTA
2020 proved to be a truly terrible year for global seaborne coal trade.
Total global loadings in the 12 months of 2020 were down -12 ...
Thursday, 17 June 21
FITCH RATINGS RAISES SHORT-TERM OIL AND GAS PRICE ASSUMPTIONS
Fitch Ratings has increased its 2021 and 2022 oil price assumptions for the Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmarks due to stronger year ...
|
|
|
Showing 546 to 550 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- The University of Queensland
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- PTC India Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- White Energy Company Limited
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
