Writing in NLJ this week, Isuru Devendra of 36 Stone analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tonzip Maritime v 2 Rivers. The dispute arose after vessel owners refused to load cargo linked to Russian oil company Neftisa because of concerns about possible sanctions exposure.
The appeal court overturned an earlier ruling and confirmed that parties relying on a sanctions clause need only make a reasonable assessment of sanctions risk, not prove a breach is likely. Judges accepted that commercial actors often operate with incomplete information and must make rapid decisions in uncertain circumstances. The evidence need only establish a ‘real risk’ that sanctions authorities could intervene.
Devendra says the judgment restores commercial common sense and underlines the importance of carefully drafted sanctions clauses that clearly define the threshold for refusing performance.
