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.
|
|
Monday, 25 October 21
A QUESTION OF POSSESSION - THE BALTIC EXCHANGE
Possession and tangibility are closely related concepts long established under English law. Yet a change to these concepts is around the corner. Th ...
Monday, 25 October 21
CHINA VOWS TO SEVERELY PUNISH MARKET VIOLATIONS AMID LOW COAL FUTURES PRICES - GLOBAL TIMES
Domestic coal futures had plunged for three consecutive trading days after the government vowed to crack down on soaring prices, and China’s ...
Monday, 25 October 21
FARMERS MAY JOIN THE COAL COMMODITY MARKET TO REDUCE RISKS - GLOBAL TIMES
A recent trip to by the Global Times to East China’s Shandong Province to get a glimpse of China’s coal supply chain revealed a surpris ...
Monday, 25 October 21
CHINA COAL PRICES MARK WORST WEEK SINCE MAY ON GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION - REUTERS
China’s thermal coal futures plunged on Friday and turned in their worst week in five months, following Beijing’s strongest interventio ...
Friday, 22 October 21
THE BIG PICTURE: ENERGY MARKETS - BREAK WAVE ADVISORS
The shipping markets have been pulled further into wild markets of coal and other energy sources. Given how nebulous this sector is, it’s alw ...
|
|
|
Showing 436 to 440 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Planning Commission, India
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- PTC India Limited - India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- The University of Queensland
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
