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, 07 July 20
WHAT DOES THE PATHWAY TO A NET-ZERO ECONOMY LOOK LIKE FOR MINERS? - WOOD MACKENZIE
Wind, solar, electric vehicles, stationary storage and transmission are all central to achieving the Paris Agreement decarbonisation goals.
&nb ...
Monday, 06 July 20
INDONESIAN COAL PRICE REFERENCE IN FREE FALL
COALspot.com: The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia has revised down again the benchmark price of Indonesian th ...
Monday, 06 July 20
SUPRAMAX: A 58,000-DWT FIXING DELIVERY VIETNAM TRIP VIA INDONESIA RE-DELIVERY WEST INDIA IN THE LOW $4,000S
Capesize
The Capesize market continues to go from strength to strength, as rates reach highs not seen since September last year. The rally is p ...
Thursday, 02 July 20
PRIVATE COAL MINING MAY SEE WEAK INVESTOR SENTIMENT: ICRA - LIVEMINT
The prospects of commercial coal mining in India may be dimmer than initially expected because of the expected shift in India’s energy mix fr ...
Wednesday, 01 July 20
THERMAL COAL OPTIONS TRADING LAUNCHED IN CHINA'S ZHENGZHOU - XINHUA
Thermal coal options started trading on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange (ZCE) in central China’s Henan Province Tuesday.
It i ...
|
|
|
Showing 881 to 885 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- PTC India Limited - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- White Energy Company Limited
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Australian Coal Association
- The University of Queensland
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
|
| |
| |
|
