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, 22 March 23
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
The crude tanker market continues to gather momentum as we head towards the end of 1Q2023, against a backdrop of strong U.S. exports paired with a ...
Wednesday, 22 March 23
WILL LOWER GAS PRICES SPARK SWITCHING IN EUROPE AND ASIA?
Record high prices devastated demand for gas and LNG across Asia and Europe last year. But with prices falling, companies are starting to re-evalua ...
Monday, 20 March 23
NTPC MULLS 5.4 MILLION TONNES COAL IMPORT IN FIRST HALF OF 2023-24: PTI
State-run power giant NTPC is planning to import around 5.4 million tonnes of coal to meet the supply shortage during the first half 2023-24 fiscal ...
Monday, 20 March 23
S. AFRICA’S EXXARO RESOURCES SAYS COAL PRICES COOLING OFF - REUTERS
South Africa’s Exxaro Resources on Thursday posted a 28% jump in 2022 profit after seeing average coal prices surge more than 150%, but warne ...
Saturday, 18 March 23
RUSSIAN LNG EXPORTS TO EUROPE REMAIN HIGH - VESSELS VALUE
Russian LNG exports to Europe remained at very high levels in February at 3.6 million CBM, following a 13 month high in January of 4.1 million CBM. ...
|
|
|
Showing 121 to 125 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Planning Commission, India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- The University of Queensland
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
|
| |
| |
|
