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.
|
|
Wednesday, 20 October 21
CHINA COAL HITS RECORD HIGH AMID TIGHT SUPPLIES - REUTERS
China coal prices hit a record high on Tuesday buoyed by a widening power crunch and cold weather despite Beijing’s efforts to bolster supply ...
Wednesday, 20 October 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
IMO 2020, Ballast Water Treatment regulations, Green Recycling, GHG emissions, EEXI, CII, ETS, Fit for 55, Carbon price/levy, the Poseidon Principl ...
Tuesday, 19 October 21
SPONGE IRON SECTOR MIGHT REPORT NEGATIVE GROWTH DUE TO COAL CRISIS: SIMA - PTI
The domestic sponge iron industry might report a negative growth in the ongoing December quarter “if the shortage of coal is allowed to conti ...
Tuesday, 19 October 21
COAL INDIA, THE FALL GUY FOR POWER CRISIS - INDIA EXPRESS
The post-Covid economic recovery has led to a major increase in the demand for power, both in India and globally. In India, coal-based power plants ...
Saturday, 16 October 21
SOLAR INSTALLATION SURGE PUTS INDIA ON TRACK TO CAP COAL-FIRED POWER AS EARLY AS 2024 - IEEFA
Recent increase in solar power installations could push coal to peak sooner than expected
If India keeps installing solar capacity a ...
|
|
|
Showing 446 to 450 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Australian Coal Association
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- White Energy Company Limited
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- PTC India Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
