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

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll