Seagrain LLC v Glencore Grain B V [2013] EWHC 1189 (Comm) (10 May 2013)

Seagrain LLC v Glencore Grain B V [2013] EWHC 1189 (Comm) (10 May 2013)

The Prohibition Clause requires a formal executive or legislative act restricting export, not mere administrative delays or disruptions. The sellers failed to prove that the Ukrainian Customs measures constituted such a restriction or that they made all reasonable efforts to perform. The Board did not misdirect itself in law, and its findings were entitled to deference.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1189 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/seller: Seagrain LLC; Defendant/buyer: Glencore Grain BV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal Under S. 69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From GAFTA Board of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction of GAFTA Prohibition Clause, Force Majeure in Sale of Goods, Causation in Contractual Non Performance
Commercial Law Arbitration Construction of GAFTA Prohibition Clause Force Majeure in Sale of Goods Causation in Contractual Non Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seagrain LLC

Claimant/seller

Glencore Grain BV

Defendant/buyer

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal Under S. 69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From GAFTA Board of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What must a seller show to rely on the GAFTA Prohibition Clause to excuse non-performance?
  2. 2 Is an outright ban required or is partial restriction sufficient under the clause?
  3. 3 Must the seller show all reasonable efforts to perform or procure substitute goods?

Ratio Decidendi

The Prohibition Clause requires a formal executive or legislative act restricting export, not mere administrative delays or disruptions. The sellers failed to prove that the Ukrainian Customs measures constituted such a restriction or that they made all reasonable efforts to perform. The Board did not misdirect itself in law, and its findings were entitled to deference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.