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.
|
|
Saturday, 23 July 22
STABILITY OF RUSSIAN GAS FLOWS REMAIN UNCERTAIN, DESPITE THE REOPENING OF NORD STREAM - WOOD MACKENZIE
Gazprom confirmed today that regular annual maintenance of Nord Stream is officially over and gas flows restarted at 63 million cubic metres per da ...
Friday, 22 July 22
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
Faced with uncertainty regarding the most cost-efficient alternative fuels and the future dominant method to reduce their greenhouse emissions, man ...
Friday, 22 July 22
YANCOAL AUSTRALIA CUTS 2022 COAL OUTPUT VIEW AS FLOODS, COVID BITE - REUTERS
Coal miner Yancoal Australia Ltd YAL.AX cut its 2022 output forecast on Wednesday, signalling a hit from higher-than-expected rainfall, COVID-19-le ...
Wednesday, 20 July 22
BOOST FOR BIOFUELS AS IMO REMOVES REGULATORY HURDLE - GARD
MARPOL Annex VI regulations were written for petroleum derived fuels but also apply to biofuels. It has been a challenge to meet the regulatory req ...
Wednesday, 20 July 22
INDONESIA’S COAL EXPORTS TO THE EU INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY RECENTLY
European countries have increased coal imports from Indonesia due to the energy crisis that hit the region after Russia cuts gas exports to Europe. ...
|
|
|
Showing 281 to 285 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Planning Commission, India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- White Energy Company Limited
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- The University of Queensland
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
|
| |
| |
|
