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.
|
|
Wednesday, 24 February 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
With yields of up to 563%, the shares of Greek shipping companies listed on Wall Street are recorded. The Coronavirus pandemic has not significantl ...
Sunday, 21 February 21
ANZ DIVESTING FROM THE WORLD’S LARGEST COAL EXPORT PORT IS 'PRAGMATISM' - IEEFA
The biggest buyers of Australian thermal coal have committed to net-zero emissions
ANZ, Australia’s third largest bank, has decided to s ...
Sunday, 21 February 21
EDITORIAL: TIME FOR BANGLADESH TO FOCUS ON RENEWABLE ENERGY, NOT COAL - DHAKA TRIBUNE
Shifting away from coal is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary in these times.
In spite of being detrimental to environment ...
Wednesday, 17 February 21
STRANDED ASSETS A LONG-TERM RISK FOR MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL EXPORTERS - FITCH RATINGS
Fossil exporters face a loss of GDP, government revenue and export receipts from the transition to a lower-carbon economy over the coming decades. ...
Friday, 12 February 21
U.S: WIND SURPASSED COAL AS NO. 1 FUEL SOURCE IN 2020 FOR SOUTHWEST POWER POOL - IEEFA
Wind energy growth due to geography, design factors, and new installations
Wind surpassed coal as the primary power generation sourc ...
|
|
|
Showing 636 to 640 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
|
| |
| |
|
