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, 23 December 21
COAL DEMAND TO PEAK IN INDIA BY 2030, WILL BACK UP RENEWABLES: NITI REPORT - BUSINESS STANDARD
Coal will remain India’s mainstay energy source and the country will shape global demand this decade, two reports have said a month after the ...
Thursday, 23 December 21
INDONESIA’S 2022 COAL OUTPUT SEEN BETWEEN 637 MLN-664 MLN T- OFFICIAL - REUTERS
Indonesia’s 2022 coal output is estimated at between 637 million to 664 million tonnes based on production plans currently being finalised, s ...
Thursday, 23 December 21
VALE ANNOUNCES THE SALE OF ITS COAL ASSETS
Vale informs that, on this date, it has entered into a binding agreement with Vulcan to sell the Moatize coal mine and the Nacala Logistics Corrido ...
Thursday, 23 December 21
INDIA: CAPTIVE POWER PRODUCERS URGE GOVT TO ENSURE NORMAL COAL SUPPLIES - PTI
A captive power producers’ association has urged the government for 100 per cent normalisation of coal supply to captive power producers whil ...
Thursday, 23 December 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
As an outstanding year for the dry bulk freight market comes to a close, so does a thriving year for the SnP market which can only be compared to 2 ...
|
|
|
Showing 381 to 385 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Australian Coal Association
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- White Energy Company Limited
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Planning Commission, India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- PTC India Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
|
| |
| |
|
