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, 03 February 21
INDONESIA TO EXPORT 395 MILLION TONS OF COAL IN 2021 - ESDM
Data from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources shows that, Indonesia is planning to produce 550 million Ton of coal in 2021 and as of t ...
Wednesday, 03 February 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
"2020 the year from hell for the entire world, had everything for shipowners. The introduction of the sulphur cap and VLSFO, a Pandemic outbre ...
Tuesday, 02 February 21
WILL THE ELECTRONIC B/L BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED? FIVE POINTS TO CONSIDER - MOL
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The trend towards digitization of Bills of Lading (B/L) has begun to attract attention in the trade and shipping industrie ...
Monday, 01 February 21
A 56,000-DWT OPEN MANILA WAS FIXED FOR A TRIP VIA INDONESIA REDELIVERY CHINA AT $11,500 - THE BALTIC BRIEFING
Capesize
The Capesize routes endured a week of slippage on rates, bringing the market back down to levels seen at the beginning of the month. D ...
Monday, 01 February 21
PAKISTAN: COAL DEMAND EXPECTED TO SPIKE IN 2021 - DAWN
Coal demand is expected to remain upbeat in 2021 as more coal-fired and captive power plants are coming up in the current year.
Acco ...
|
|
|
Showing 646 to 650 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Australian Coal Association
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Planning Commission, India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
