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, 06 May 20
KOSPO INVITED COAL BIDS FOR LOW CALORIFIC VALUE COAL
COALspot.com: Korea Southern Power Co., Ltd. (KOSPO) has issued an International tender for 160,000 Metric Tons (MT) Low Calorific Value Coal for J ...
Wednesday, 06 May 20
COST CHALLENGES IN A US$20/BBL WORLD - WOOD MACKENZIE
A new approach is needed to ensure supply sector resilience
How will US$20/bbl affect the oil and gas supply chain?
It’s going to g ...
Wednesday, 06 May 20
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
It comes as no surprise that activity in the dry bulk SnP market remains soft, with asset values caught in the downward spiral generated by the Cov ...
Wednesday, 06 May 20
FLOATING STORAGE OF OIL CARGOES - STANDARD CLUB
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
Due to a combination of circumstances there is now a worldwide shortage of storage space ashore for both unrefi ...
Wednesday, 06 May 20
IRON ORE TRADE REMAINS REMARKABLY RESILIENT THIS YEAR, AT LEAST IN ASIA - BANCHERO COSTA
Iron ore trade remains remarkably resilient this year, at least in Asia, despite the global economic impact from COVID-19. In the first 4 months of ...
|
|
|
Showing 986 to 990 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Planning Commission, India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- The University of Queensland
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- White Energy Company Limited
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
|
| |
| |
|
