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.
|
|
Saturday, 22 September 18
SHIPOWNERS URGENTLY NEED A FUEL-MANAGEMENT PLAN - METTE KRONHOLM FRAENDE, BIMCO
With the majority of ship operators expected to choose low-sulphur fuel over scrubbers to comply with the new IMO sulphur cap regulation, all eyes ...
Saturday, 22 September 18
GERMANY'S MOVE TO SCRAP COAL WILL COST TAXPAYERS - BRIAN PARKIN | WILLIAM WILKES
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s plan to close Germany’s remaining coal-fired power stations will drive up subsidies for regions that mine th ...
Saturday, 22 September 18
FITCH RATINGS: WORLD GROWTH FORECAST CUT ON US-CHINA TRADE BATTLE
Protectionist US trade policies have now reached the point where they are materially affecting what remains a strong global growth outlook, with th ...
Tuesday, 18 September 18
COOLING OUTLOOK FOR COAL - KATE JONES
At a time of increasing focus on the renewables market as the world seeks to clean up its act to prevent climate change, what is the outlook like f ...
Monday, 17 September 18
GLENCORE RETURNS TO JAPAN COAL TALKS SCUPPERED BY HIGH PRICES - BLOOMBERG
Mining giant Glencore Plc and Japanese utilities have resumed thermal coal supply negotiations, restarting talks that fell apart earlier this year ...
|
|
|
Showing 1611 to 1615 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- Australian Coal Association
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- MS Steel International - UAE
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- The University of Queensland
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- White Energy Company Limited
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Planning Commission, India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
|
| |
| |
|
