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.
|
|
Friday, 05 January 24
BANGLADESH’S 2023 COAL-FIRED POWER OUTPUT TRIPLED, EASING SHORTAGES - REUTERS
Bangladesh nearly tripled its coal-fired power output in 2023, a Reuters analysis of government data showed, helping it tide over the worst power s ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
COAL TRADE CONTINUES TO HEAD EAST - BALTIC EXCHANGE
The global coal trade, once concentrated in the Pacific and Atlantic basins, is undergoing a significant transformation, as highlighted in the Inte ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
COAL CARGOES: AVOIDING EXPLOSION AND SELF-HEATING - GARD
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Despite its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, global coal consumption climbed to an all-time high in 2022 and is ...
Tuesday, 02 January 24
SINOPEC FORECASTS CHINA’S COAL CONSUMPTION TO PEAK AROUND 2025 - REUTERS
China Petrochemical Corp, or Sinopec, expects coal consumption to peak around 2025 at 4.37 billion metric tons, the state energy group said in an o ...
Thursday, 07 December 23
CHINA TO SET UP COAL PRODUCTION RESERVE TO STABILISE PRICES - REUTERS
China will establish a back-up coal production system by 2027 to stabilise prices and secure coal supply, the state planner said on Wednesday, even ...
|
|
|
Showing 61 to 65 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- The University of Queensland
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- PTC India Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
|
| |
| |
|
