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, 09 September 20
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
The uneventful summer lull which is coming to an end soon has left its stigma on the newbuilding market, which has already been devastated by the g ...
Saturday, 05 September 20
INDIA WON'T KICK ITS COAL HABIT SO EASILY - HINDU BUSINESS LINE
India has traditionally considered itself lucky to have been endowed with abundant coal reserves, which it has sought to use to meet its energy nee ...
Saturday, 05 September 20
FINANCING COMPLETE FOR 900MW FIFTH PHASE OF MASSIVE DUBAI SOLAR PARK: ARABIAN BUSINESS
Saudi-based ACWA Power on Thursday announced it has completed the signing of all financing agreements for the fifth phase of the Mohammed bin Rashi ...
Saturday, 05 September 20
POLISH COAL DEMAND EXPECTED TO FALL BY 7 MLN TONNES NEXT YEAR: MINISTER - REUTERS
Poland’s demand for coal is expected to fall by around 7 million tonnes next year, or more than 10% of annual hard coal production, after a d ...
Saturday, 05 September 20
PAKISTAN'S NEW 27-YEAR POWER PLAN RISKS LOCKING IN LONG-TERM OVERCAPACITY, LEAVING IMPORTED COAL AND LNG PLANTS STRANDED - IEEFA
Wind and solar, the country’s cheapest source of new generation, also overlooked
Pakistan risks locking itself into building m ...
|
|
|
Showing 791 to 795 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- White Energy Company Limited
- The University of Queensland
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
