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.
|
|
Sunday, 18 April 21
INDONESIA LIKELY TO WITNESS 119 OIL AND GAS PROJECTS STARTS ACROSS VALUE CHAIN BY 2025, SAYS GLOBALDATA
Indonesia is expected to witness 119 oil and gas projects commencing their operations across value chain during 2021-2025, accounting for 6% of the ...
Sunday, 18 April 21
WORLDSTEEL RAISES 2021 STEEL DEMAND GROWTH FORECAST TO 5.8% - WORLDSTEEL
The World Steel Association (worldsteel) today released its Short Range Outlook (SRO) for 2021 and 2022. worldsteel forecasts that steel demand wil ...
Sunday, 18 April 21
CHINA'S Q1 COAL OUTPUT RISES 16% ON STRONG DEMAND FOR WINTER HEATING - REUTERS
China’s coal output rose 16% in the first quarter from the same period last year, bolstered by strong demand for winter heating and robust in ...
Wednesday, 14 April 21
INDIA HAS A RECORD LEVEL OF STOCKPILED COAL DAMPENING NEED FOR NEW DOMESTIC MINES - IEEFA
Proposed coal mining expansions at odds with excess supply
India has stockpiled a record 132 million tonnes of coal – enough t ...
Wednesday, 14 April 21
BANGLADESH NEEDS A RENEWABLES FOCUS, NOT A SWITCH FROM 'COAL TO GAS' - IEEFA
Renewables are cheaper and more sustainable than gas imports, and can provide better energy security in developing nations
The emerg ...
|
|
|
Showing 596 to 600 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- The University of Queensland
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
|
| |
| |
|
