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.
|
|
Sunday, 07 October 18
SUPRAMAX: INDO-INDIA USUAL COAL RUNS WERE COVERED AT US$ 12K - FEARNLEYS
Capesize
Average daily earnings up close to 15 pct in 5 trading days, thus patience finally paying off for owners of the big ships - Chinese play ...
Sunday, 07 October 18
A CASE FOR 20/20 VISION? IMO'S LOW SULPHUR FUEL LIMIT UNDER MARPOL ANNEX VI WHICH COMES INTO FORCE ON 1ST JANUARY 2020
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The implementation of the global 0.5% sulphur cap for bunker fuel under MARPOL Annex VI in just under 18 months’ ti ...
Friday, 05 October 18
COAL PRODUCTION REACHES 64% OF 2018 TARGET : THE JAKARTA POST
National coal production up to August has already reached 311 million tons, or 64 percent of this year's total target of 485 million tons, acco ...
Wednesday, 03 October 18
VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN COAL EXPORTS TIPPED TO DECLINE SHARPLY OVER NEXT 18 MONTHS - THE GUARDIAN
Thermal coal prices forecast to drop 25% and metallurgical coal prices 23% as value of iron ore exports also falls
The value of Aust ...
Wednesday, 03 October 18
SHIPPING MARKET INSIGHT - KATERINA RESTIS
The bunker fuel supply and availability landscape is close to its transformation with the enforcement of the IMO’s global 0.5% fuel Sulphur c ...
|
|
|
Showing 1596 to 1600 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Planning Commission, India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- PTC India Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- White Energy Company Limited
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- The University of Queensland
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Australian Coal Association
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
|
| |
| |
|
