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, 29 October 18
SUPRAMAX: THE ASIAN AREA SAW FALLING RATES, WITH A 61,000DWT FIXING DELIVERY KOHSICHANG TRIP VIA INDONESIA, REDELIVERY INDIA, AT $10,500 - BALTIC BRIEFING
Capesize
A market of two halves for most of the week with rates in the Atlantic firming and easing in the East for most of the week, but then, ...
Friday, 26 October 18
SHIP OPERATING COSTS EXPECTED TO RISE IN 2018 AND 2019 - MOORE STEPHENS
Total vessel operating costs in the shipping industry are expected to rise by 2.7% in 2018 and by 3.1% in 2019, according to our latest survey.
...
Friday, 26 October 18
SEVERAL CONTRACTIONS IN GLOBAL STEEL PRODUCTION - JEFFREY LANDSBERG
World Steel Association data released today shows that global crude steel production totaled approximately 151.7 million tons in September. T ...
Thursday, 25 October 18
WHAT DOES THE "IMO 2020" REGULATION REALLY SAY? A QUICK GUIDE - BIMCO
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The shipping industry has all eyes firmly fixed on the topic, but what exactly do the “IMO 2020” global sulph ...
Wednesday, 24 October 18
MARKET INSIGHT - NASSOS SOULAKIS
Looking at 2018 SnP activity, it is evident that Greek, Chinese and North European (German and Norwegian) owners are the top buying nationalities, ...
|
|
|
Showing 1576 to 1580 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- The University of Queensland
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- VISA Power Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Australian Coal Association
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- White Energy Company Limited
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
|
| |
| |
|
