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, 12 November 18
COAL BUSINESS REMAINS PROSPECTIVE - ANTARA
Coal business happened to be sluggish in the 2012-2015 period because coal prices in the world market fell sharply, but it has begun to crawl up si ...
Monday, 12 November 18
INDONESIA'S HBA ENDS DECLINE IN NOVEMBER
COALspot.com: The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Indonesia has revised down the benchmark price of Indonesian thermal ...
Wednesday, 07 November 18
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - VASILIS MOIRIS
This has been another active week in the second-hand market for both the dry bulk and tanker sectors. Buying interest has recently increased, which ...
Monday, 05 November 18
TIGHTER FUEL RULES COULD RAISE SHIPOWNERS' COSTS AND CAPEX - FITCH RATINGS
More stringent fuel regulations regarding sulphur content could significantly increase global shipping companies’ operating costs and capex n ...
Friday, 02 November 18
COAL FETCHES 102% PREMIUM IN E-AUCTION, SURPASSING THE EARLIER HIGHEST OF 95% - FINANCIAL EXPRESS
Coal prices have received a premium of 102% in spot e-auction during September 2018, surpassing the earlier highest of 95% premium during the spot ...
|
|
|
Showing 1566 to 1570 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Australian Coal Association
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- White Energy Company Limited
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Economic Council, Georgia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- The University of Queensland
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
