header-logo header-logo

07 November 2025 / Isuru Devendra
Issue: 8138 / Categories: Features , Commercial , International , Sanctions
printer mail-detail

Stuck on the dock

235042
Are shipowners caught between sanctions & repudiatory breach? Isuru Devendra reports on a telling case
  • A recent judgment provides guidance on interpreting sanctions clauses and the evidentiary burden for parties seeking to rely on them. But it appears to put shipowners (and others) in a difficult position when seeking to comply with sanctions and contractual obligations.
  • The deputy judge found that the owner’s decision to refuse to load the cargo was based on standard due diligence processes. But he also found that there was other material available at the time which the owner should have taken into account.

The recent Commercial Court judgment in Tonzip Maritime Ltd v 2Rivers Pte Ltd [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm) highlights the perils confronting shipowners (and other parties) seeking to comply with both sanctions and their contractual obligations in fast-moving commercial environments. The case concerned whether a shipowner was entitled to lawfully refuse to load cargo pursuant to a sanctions clause in a charterparty.

The judgment provides guidance on the interpretation of sanctions

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll