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, 30 September 20
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
Spot rates for Capesize bulk carriers received a significant boost last week, however, there are certain reservations in the market regarding the p ...
Tuesday, 29 September 20
CHINA TAIYUAN COAL TRANSACTION PRICE INDEX UP 0.73 PCT - XINHUA
China Taiyuan coal transaction price index stood at 125.91 points Monday, up 0.73 percent week on week.
The index, released by China ...
Tuesday, 29 September 20
SHIPPING MARKET - ALLIED
Here we are, just a short breath before the final quarter of the year, and many are now debating to what extent we can really expect a firm dry bul ...
Tuesday, 29 September 20
INDONESIAN COAL COMPANIES' EARNINGS TO WEAKEN IN 2H20 - FITCH RATINGS
Rated Indonesian coal miners and contractors will have weaker operating and financial performances in the second half of 2020 than in the first, sa ...
Tuesday, 29 September 20
RUSSIA'S COAL PRODUCTION TO DROP BY 10.5% IN 2020, SAYS MINISTRY - TASS
Russia’s Economic Development Ministry projects a 10.5% decrease in coal production in the country in 2020 compared with last year to 395 mln ...
|
|
|
Showing 771 to 775 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- White Energy Company Limited
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Planning Commission, India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Australian Coal Association
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
|
| |
| |
|
