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.
|
|
Thursday, 26 January 23
AUSTRALIA'S CORONADO GLOBAL SEES COAL PRICES RISING ON RESUMING CHINA IMPORTS - REUTERS
Australia’s Coronado Global Resources said on Tuesday resuming metallurgical coal imports to China would likely push sea-borne coal prices hi ...
Monday, 23 January 23
CHINA'S MAJOR COAL-PRODUCING PROVINCE ACCELERATES DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION - XINHUA
At Chindata Group’s big-data industrial park in Lingqiu County of Datong City, hundreds of thousands of servers are running round-the-clock t ...
Monday, 23 January 23
CHINA'S COAL-RICH PROVINCE SEES COAL PRODUCTION INCREASE IN 2022 - XINHUA
North China’s coal-rich province of Shanxi saw its coal production hit 1.31 billion tonnes in 2022, up 8.7 percent year on year, local author ...
Wednesday, 18 January 23
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
From Feb 5, another price cap will be introduced to Russian fuels and oil products, adding to the one for crude oil, already in place from Dec. 3. ...
Tuesday, 17 January 23
FRAUD IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO CARGO LOSSES - TT CLUB
The almost exclusive use of online facilities to process business transactions allows a myriad of fraudulent pursuits to find opportunities within ...
|
|
|
Showing 146 to 150 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- PTC India Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Planning Commission, India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- The University of Queensland
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
|
| |
| |
|
