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.
|
|
Tuesday, 08 December 20
MARKET ANALYSIS - ALLIED SHIPPING
It is now undisputed that oil consumption for 2020 will post a considerable drop, as demand for several petroleum products has plummeted since the ...
Tuesday, 08 December 20
PANAMAX: THE OVERALL MARKET SEEMS TO BE UNDER NEGATIVE PRESSURE - ALLIED
Capesize
A rather indifferent week for the Capesize market, with BCI 5TC figure finishing the week with slight losses of 0.8%. The Atlantic enj ...
Friday, 04 December 20
CHINA'S BENCHMARK POWER COAL PRICE EDGES UP - XINHUA
China’s benchmark power coal price rose slightly during the past week.
The Bohai-Rim Steam-Coal Price Index (BSPI), a gauge of ...
Friday, 04 December 20
THE INDONESIA COAL PRICE REFERENCE REACHES THREE MONTH HIGH ON IMPROVING DEMAND OUTLOOK
COALspot.com: The Indonesia Coal Price Reference reaches three month high on improving demand outlook . The Indonesia Coal Price Reference rose by& ...
Wednesday, 02 December 20
GLOBAL MINING SECTOR OUTLOOK STABLE DUE TO CHINA'S RECOVERY - FITCH RATINGS
China’s post-pandemic economic recovery and sizeable infrastructure-focused government stimulus boosted global metals and mining prices, help ...
|
|
|
Showing 716 to 720 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- PTC India Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
|
| |
| |
|
