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, 16 June 20
SHALE SHOCKED - WOOD MACKENZIE
Capturing shut-ins in real time
Oil markets are searching for balance as the world reflects on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. ...
Sunday, 14 June 20
INDONESIAN COAL WAS STILL IN DEMAND; A 52,000-DWT SUPRAMAX FIXING DELIVERY CJK FOR A ROUND VOYAGE VIA INDONESIA AT $6,250 - BALTIC BRIEFING
Capesize
The Capesize market made new highs for the year this week after strong iron ore demand to the far east continued to develop in the mar ...
Friday, 12 June 20
CHINA CURBS COAL IMPORTS AFTER 5 MONTHS OF RECORD INFLOWS - SOURCES: REUTERS
China has stepped up customs checks for coal imports, leading to lengthy processing delays at ports, four sources familiar with the matter said, as ...
Friday, 12 June 20
COAL INDIA LIMITED SET FOR MARKETING DRIVE TO CREATE DEMAND - FINANCIAL EXPRESS
State-run miner Coal India (CIL), which is primarily focused on supplying coal to the power sector, is now reorienting its marketing to create dema ...
Friday, 12 June 20
MOODY'S REVISES BRENT OIL PRICE OUTLOOK TO $35/BARREL IN 2020 - TASS
Low oil prices are likely to exert the highest pressure on Iraq, Oman and Kuwait due to the limited space for the fiscal policy pursuit and higher ...
|
|
|
Showing 911 to 915 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Planning Commission, India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
|
| |
| |
|
