Seagrain LLC v Glencore Grain B V, England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Michael Nolan (instructed by L. G. Zambartas LLC) for the Claimants/Sellers
Susannah Jones (instructed by Reed Smith LLP) for the Defendants/Buyers

Judges

MR JUSTICE BLAIR

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Seagrain LLC v. Glencore Grain B V

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an arbitration appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 regarding the interpretation and application of the GAFTA Prohibition Clause in a contract for the sale of feed wheat. The contract, dated 6 July 2010, involved the sale of 3,000 MT of wheat of Ukrainian or Russian origin, with shipment scheduled between 15 and 31 August 2010. At the relevant time, Russian wheat was subject to an export ban, and the buyers accepted that the contract had to be fulfilled by Ukrainian wheat. The sellers contended that Ukrainian customs measures restricted export, thereby triggering the Prohibition Clause and excusing performance. The arbitration tribunal (GAFTA Board of Appeal) rejected the sellers’ claim, awarding damages to the buyers for wrongful repudiation. Permission to appeal was granted by a High Court judge.

Legal Issues Presented

What must a seller demonstrate to rely on the GAFTA Prohibition Clause to excuse non-performance of a contract of sale?
Specifically, is it necessary for the seller to show:
1. That there was an outright ban or prohibition on export, or is it sufficient to show that an executive act by the government partially or otherwise restricted export?
2. That the seller made all reasonable efforts to ship the goods or to procure replacement goods?
Whether the sellers were excused from performing the contract and whether the contract was cancelled by virtue of the Prohibition Clause.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The GAFTA Board of Appeal applied an incorrect test by equating "restrictions" with an outright prohibition or ban on export.
The executive acts of Ukrainian Customs, particularly the requirement that all samples be sent to a single laboratory, caused delays and disruption that restricted export within the limited shipment window, thus triggering the Prohibition Clause.
The Board set the bar too high by requiring proof of an outright ban, rather than recognizing partial restrictions as sufficient.

Appellee's Arguments

The sellers’ case amounted only to delays and disruptions caused by customs procedures, which do not constitute a restriction under the Prohibition Clause.
The Board was correct to find no actual restriction akin to an outright ban on exports had occurred.
Broadly construing "executive acts" to include any administrative delay would undermine commercial certainty and lead to automatic cancellations on trivial grounds.
Proof of prevention of shipment is required to invoke the clause, which the sellers failed to provide.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft Schaft M.B.H v. Vanden Avenne Izegem P.V.B.A [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 109 (HL)	Interpretation of the original GAFTA Prohibition Clause and the requirement of a prohibition or executive act preventing fulfilment.	Illustrated the original clause’s focus on prevention of fulfilment and the context for later revisions to the clause.
Pancommerce S.A. v Veecheema B.V. [1982] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 645; [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 304	Clarification that a restriction must actually prevent shipment to trigger the clause; mere existence of an executive act restricting export is insufficient without prevention.	Used to reject sellers’ argument that any executive act restricting export triggered the clause regardless of actual prevention of performance.
Agrokor A.G. v Tradigrain S.A [2000] 1 Lloyd's Law Rep 497	Reinforced that sellers must prove actual prevention or prohibition to rely on the clause.	Supported the tribunal’s approach rejecting the sellers’ broad interpretation of the clause.
Bunge S.A. v Nidera S.A. [2013] EWHC 84 (Comm)	Consideration of causal connection and proof required to invoke the Prohibition Clause.	The court referred to this recent decision but did not add to it, noting the appeal was pending.
Andre et Cie v Cook Industries Inc [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 200	Deference given to specialist trade tribunals in interpreting trade clauses such as the GAFTA Prohibition Clause.	Supported the court’s deference to the GAFTA tribunal’s expertise in determining whether the customs measures constituted a qualifying executive act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the construction of the GAFTA Prohibition Clause, particularly the meaning of "executive act restricting export" and the evidential burden on the seller. It acknowledged that the clause was revised after earlier cases to cover partial restrictions, not just outright bans. However, the court agreed with the buyers that the sellers’ broad interpretation—where any executive act causing delay or disruption would suffice—was unworkable and would undermine commercial certainty. The court emphasized that the clause requires a formal, clear restriction on exports, akin to a prohibition, not mere administrative delays.

The court reviewed the facts as found by the GAFTA tribunal, noting that there was no formal export ban by Ukrainian authorities during the shipment period, and that the sellers failed to demonstrate that they made all reasonable efforts to perform the contract, such as attempting to procure alternative goods. The tribunal’s finding that the customs measures did not amount to an executive act restricting export within the meaning of the clause was held to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The court also highlighted the importance of deference to the specialist GAFTA tribunal’s expertise in trade matters. It concluded that the tribunal did not apply the wrong legal test and was entitled to reject the sellers' claim based on the facts.

Regarding the causation question—whether sellers must prove all reasonable efforts to perform—the court noted a related ongoing appeal in another case and declined to add further comment, given its decision on the primary issue.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the GAFTA tribunal’s decision that the sellers were not excused from performance under the Prohibition Clause. The sellers failed to prove that an executive act by Ukrainian authorities constituted a formal restriction or prohibition on export sufficient to trigger the clause. Furthermore, the sellers did not demonstrate that they made all reasonable efforts to perform the contract or procure replacement goods.

This decision reinforces the requirement that the Prohibition Clause applies only to formal, substantive restrictions on export, not to administrative delays or disruptions. It affirms the deference courts give to specialist trade tribunals in interpreting such clauses and underscores the evidential burden on sellers to justify non-performance under the clause. No new precedent was established beyond these points.