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, 24 October 18
CHINESE POWER PLANT STOCKPILES AT HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE 2015 - JEFFREY LANDSBERG
Chinese power plant coal stockpiles have climbed to approximately 83.3 million tons as of the middle of this month, said Jeffrey Landsberg in his e ...
Tuesday, 23 October 18
WILL THE U.S. COAL DECLINE CONTINUE? - FORBES
What’s Trump’s new coal proposal?
Adding to its controversial plan to leverage federal authority to keep retiring baselo ...
Monday, 22 October 18
CONTINUED HIGH LNG PRICES; TRADE WAR IMPACT LIMITED - FITCH RATINGS
Fitch Ratings expects sustained high spot liquefied natural gas (LNG) and contract prices over the next two quarters on limited investment in LNG e ...
Monday, 22 October 18
WINTER OIL MARKET OUTLOOK - OPEC
The oil market in the winter season is generally characterized by demand for diesel, particularly in the northern hemisphere, leaving product marke ...
Saturday, 20 October 18
PANAMAX: THE PACIFIC SAW A LARGE VOLUME OF FIXING, WITH INDONESIA AGAIN THE DRIVING FORCE - THE BALTIC BRIEFING
Capesize
A positive end to last week after a shaky start, with a Coaltrans taking participants out of the market early on and with rates slippi ...
|
|
|
Showing 1581 to 1585 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- White Energy Company Limited
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Planning Commission, India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Parliament of New Zealand
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
|
| |
| |
|
