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, 27 October 20
PLN STILL REFUSING TO ADAPT, A MOVE WHICH WILL HURT INVESTORS, CONSUMERS, AND THE GOVERNMENT PURSE - IEEFA
Utility’s latest planning report locks PLN into the past
PLN would be better served restructuring its business to address the current en ...
Monday, 26 October 20
'LONG ASCENT' TO RECOVERY OF GLOBAL GROWTH - BALTIC EXCHANGE
The global economy has so far avoided a “financial catastrophe” but growth projections from the International Monetary Fund’s lat ...
Friday, 23 October 20
SHIPPING LOANS AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE - VICTOR ONYEGBADO, AKABOGU & ASSOCIATES
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Shipping finance transactions are characterised by peculiar risk factors principally on account of the shipping asset&rsq ...
Friday, 23 October 20
WHAT WILL THE 2020 ELECTIONS MEAN FOR US ENERGY? - WOOD MACKENZIE
The 2020 elections present American voters with a choice between two radically different visions for the future of energy. President Donald Trump r ...
Wednesday, 21 October 20
BRAZIL EXPORTED 238.7 MLN TONNES OF IRON ORE IN THE FIRST 9 MONTHS OF 2020 - BANCHERO COSTA
Brazil’s iron ore exports have been gradually but steadily recovering following a disastrous winter period of 2019/2020. In the first 9 month ...
|
|
|
Showing 751 to 755 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Australian Coal Association
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- The University of Queensland
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- White Energy Company Limited
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Planning Commission, India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
