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.
|
|
Friday, 02 November 18
CHINA: COAL CONSUMPTION POSTS STRONG GROWTH ON BACK OF POWER GENERATION DEMAND - CHINA DAILY
China’s energy consumption experienced continuous rebound during the first three quarters in 2018, National Energy Administration announced o ...
Thursday, 01 November 18
IMO 2020 - EXPLORING THE OPTION OF SOX SCRUBBERS - SIDDHARTH MAHAJAN, GARD
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
There are four possible methods of compliance:
1.use VLSFO (very low Sulphur oil) or blends;
2,use dis ...
Wednesday, 31 October 18
INDIA: COAL IMPORTS SURGE ON DOMESTIC SHORT SUPPLY - HINDU
Shortage of thermal coal supply in India has pushed imports up to 85 million tonnes (mt) in the first half of the current fiscal compared to 75 mt ...
Wednesday, 31 October 18
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - APOSTOLOS ROMPOPOULOS
Since the IMO’s 2020 global cap on sulphur in marine fuels is coming into force, ship-owners have to decide whether they will operate using e ...
Monday, 29 October 18
IMPLEMENTATION OF SULPHUR 2020 LIMIT - CARRIAGE BAN ADOPTED - IMO
An amendment to support consistent implementation of the forthcoming 0.50% limit on sulphur in ships fuel oil was adopted by the International Mari ...
|
|
|
Showing 1571 to 1575 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Planning Commission, India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Australian Coal Association
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
|
| |
| |
|
