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, 17 February 22
MAJOR INSTITUTIONS PROVIDED OVER $1.5 TRLN TO COAL SECTOR IN 2019-2021, SAYS NGO GROUP - REUTERS
Financial institutions channelled more than $1.5 trillion into the coal industry in loans and underwriting from January 2019 to November 2021, even ...
Thursday, 17 February 22
APAC THERMAL COAL PRICES TO EASE ON END OF INDONESIA EXPORT BAN - FITCH RATINGS
Fitch Ratings-Shanghai/Singapore-14 February 2022: APAC thermal coal prices are likely to come under pressure in the near term due to seasonally we ...
Tuesday, 15 February 22
IS ANOTHER COAL SHORTAGE CRISIS LOOMING OVER INDIA? - BUSINESS STANDARD
In December last year, the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI) shot off a letter to the Prime Minister claiming that the coal crisis was ...
Tuesday, 15 February 22
THERMAL COAL'S RECORD PRICE RUN MAY END UP ITS OWN WORST ENEMY - REUTERS
The price of benchmark Australian thermal coal rose last week to trade near record highs, providing a short-term boost to producers but increasing ...
Thursday, 10 February 22
INDONESIA: COAL EXPORT BAN - SKULD
Indonesia's coal export ban in the light of force majeure and off-hire clauses
In January 2022, Indonesia, the world's biggest exporte ...
|
|
|
Showing 346 to 350 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- White Energy Company Limited
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Planning Commission, India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- The University of Queensland
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
|
| |
| |
|
