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.
|
|
Friday, 10 July 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, 10 July 20
GLOBAL SHIPPING EARNINGS FORECAST CUT AS SUPPLY SET TO OUTSTRIP DEMAND - MOODY'S
EBITDA forecast worsens, keeping outlook negative. We now expect the aggregate EBITDA of rated shipping companies to fall by around 16%-18% in 2020 ...
Friday, 10 July 20
SLOW RECOVERY IN TANKER RATES TO WEIGH ON BUANA LINTAS LAUTAN - FITCH RATINGS
Fitch Ratings believes that international tanker rates are likely improve after their sharp fall since May 2020, albeit at a slow pace. The weaknes ...
Wednesday, 08 July 20
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
During the previous month, the dry bulk market witnessed an impressive increase in the BDI index that has reached 1800 points from 500 with a clear ...
Tuesday, 07 July 20
COAL INDIA WORKERS STRIKE CUTS OUTPUT BY 56%: OFFICIAL - REUTERS
A strike at Coal India Ltd cut production by 56% in the three days ending July 4 as workers oppose opening up coal mining to the private sector, a ...
|
|
|
Showing 876 to 880 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- The University of Queensland
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- White Energy Company Limited
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
|
| |
| |
|
