SEAGRAIN LLC V GLENCORE GRAIN BV [2013] EWHC 1189 (Comm), Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Blair, 10 May 2013

26 Май

В публикации рассматривается дело, рассмотренное английским судом, касающееся экспорта зерновых, в частности, кормовой пшеницы, из Украины. Дело в суде было возбуждено по жалобе на решение арбитража ГАФТА. Эта жалоба была отклонена судом. Спор возник из исполнения контракта, составленного на основе проформы ГАФТА № 48.

This was the appeal of a GAFTA arbitration concerning the proper construction and application of the GAFTA Prohibition Clause. The appellant sellers Seagrain LLC and the respondent buyers Glencore Grain BV had entered into a contract dated 6 July 2010 for the sale of 3,000 mt 10 per cent more or less at sellers’ option of feed wheat of Ukrainian or Russian origin c&f free out, one safe port, one safe berth, Haifa or Ashdod. Shipment was from 15 to 31 August 2010 inclusive at sellers’ option. The contract incorporated the GAFTA 48 contract form, including the GAFTA Prohibition Clause. At this time, Russian wheat was subject to an export ban and sellers cited Ukrainian customs imposing controls, in particular a letter of 2 August 2010, 13 days before the beginning of the shipment period, requiring all customs samples to be sent to one laboratory.

The judge dismissed the appeal.

(1) The GAFTA Appeals Board had been entitled to reject on the facts sellers’ case that the requirements of Ukrainian Customs, in particular the requirement to send samples to a particular laboratory, constituted an «executive act» within the meaning of the clause.

(2) The judge declined to answer the causal connection point, ie whether sellers had to clearly demonstrate that they had tried all avenues and made all reasonable efforts to either ship the goods or to try and buy replacement goods in order to comply with their contractual obligation to ship the goods, noting that the issue was under appeal in the separate case Bunge SA v Nidera SA [2013] EWHC 84 (Comm); [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep Plus 29.

Источник:http://www.i-law.com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=321955