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 September 21
RECORD-HIGH GAS PRICES AFFECT MANY EUROPEAN CORPORATE SECTORS - FITCH RATINGS
Record-high natural gas prices are putting pressure on supply chains of many European corporate sectors, including non-integrated energy suppliers, ...
Wednesday, 22 September 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
The unfolding last week of a trilateral defence pact between the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom (AUKUS) envisages a wide range of col ...
Tuesday, 21 September 21
CHINESE COAL IMPORTS FROM AUSTRALIA DROP 98.6% AS RESTRICTIONS BITE - BIMCO
In the first seven months of the year Chinese coal imports from Australia have totalled just 780,000 tonnes as Chinese restrictions on Australian c ...
Tuesday, 21 September 21
CHINA'S COAL OUTPUT RESUMES GROWTH IN AUGUST - XINHUA
China’s raw coal output rose 0.8 percent year on year to 340 million tonnes last month, official data showed.
The growth rate ...
Wednesday, 15 September 21
MARKET INSIGHT - INTERMODAL
Following the oil price sell off during most of August, partly triggered by oil demand fears amid the delta COVID variant, oil prices have resumed ...
|
|
|
Showing 481 to 485 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Planning Commission, India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Parliament of New Zealand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- The University of Queensland
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Australian Coal Association
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
|
| |
| |
|
