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, 30 June 22
FINANCIAL GAINS SUPPORT COAL TRANSITION - BALTIC EXCHANGE
Support for the shift away from coal dependency continues to mount, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) calculating that the move would gene ...
Thursday, 30 June 22
WHY ARE LNG SHIPPING STOCKS RESILIENT? - DREWRY
LNG shipping stocks are proving resilient despite uncertainties about growth in global GDP, high inflation and the ongoing geopolitical crisis caus ...
Thursday, 30 June 22
SPOT AUSTRALIAN THERMAL COAL HAS SURGED, BUT CONTRACT PRICE IS KEY - REUTERS
The spot price of Australian thermal coal is higher than that of coking coal, an unprecedented situation that highlights just how the global market ...
Thursday, 30 June 22
SHANXI PROVINCE RAISES ANNUAL COAL OUTPUT TO 1.3 BILLION TONS TO ENSURE CHINA’S ENERGY SUPPLY - GLOBAL TIMES
North China’s Shanxi Province, a major coal-producing region, recently announced a move to increase its annual coal production output by 107 ...
Thursday, 30 June 22
DIVERGENCE BETWEEN HIGH- AND LOW-GRADE THERMAL COAL PRICES IN APAC TO NARROW - FITCH RATINGS
Prices between high- and low-grade thermal coal in Asia-Pacific (APAC) have diverged since late March 2022, but Fitch Ratings expects the gap to na ...
|
|
|
Showing 311 to 315 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- The University of Queensland
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Parliament of New Zealand
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- PTC India Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Planning Commission, India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- White Energy Company Limited
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
|
| |
| |
|
