Tonzip Maritime Ltd v 2Rivers PTE Ltd [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm) (31 July 2025)

Executive Summary

Tonzip Maritime Ltd (Claimant) sued 2Rivers PTE Ltd (Defendant) over breach of a charterparty involving the vessel *CATALAN SEA*.
Central dispute: refusal by Claimant to load oil cargo from Neftisa, linked to sanctioned individual Mikail Gutseriev, under UK/EU sanctions laws.
Defendant counterclaimed for alleged breach by Claimant.
Court examined sanctions compliance under UK Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and EU restrictive measures on Belarus-linked persons.
Claimant relied on a sanctions clause in the charterparty to refuse carriage, citing risk of sanctions exposure.
Defendant argued Neftisa was not controlled by Gutseriev, supported by legal opinions.
Judgment focused on sanctions law applicability, contractual obligations, and evidentiary weight of witness statements.

Sanctions applied to Mikail Gutseriev by EU (June 2021) and UK (August 2021) under Relevant Sanctions Laws.
Neftisa identified as linked to Gutseriev, a designated person, triggering sanctions risk.
Charterparty’s EPS Sanctions Clause warranted no exposure to sanctions laws for Claimant, vessel, crew, or insurers.
Loading Neftisa Cargo would have involved making funds available to a sanctioned entity, breaching sanctions.
Claimant’s refusal to load was based on compliance with UK/EU sanctions laws.
Defendant’s legal opinions challenged sanctions applicability by disputing Gutseriev’s control over Neftisa.

Increased scrutiny on ownership structures to avoid indirect sanctions exposure.
Legal uncertainty where sanctioned individuals transfer ownership to relatives or proxies.
Risk of contractual disputes where sanctions clauses impose broad compliance obligations.
Potential for conflicting legal opinions complicating operational decisions in maritime trade.
Growing importance of real-time sanctions screening and due diligence in charterparty performance.

Sanctions reflect EU and UK efforts to target Belarus-linked individuals amid broader geopolitical tensions.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine post-dates this case but underlines evolving sanctions regimes affecting Russian oil trade.
Turkey (Aliaga port) as a Mediterranean destination highlights regional trade routes impacted by sanctions.
India, US, and other global actors indirectly affected by enforcement of EU/UK sanctions in maritime commerce.
The case illustrates the intersection of national, supranational, and commercial law in sanction enforcement.

Disruption of oil shipments linked to sanctioned entities impacts supply chains and contractual revenues.
Potential financial exposure exceeding US$1 million for breach of charterparty.
Legal costs and operational delays from sanctions-related disputes increase commercial risk.
Sanctions enforcement may shift trade flows, affecting market availability and pricing.
Insurance and crew nationality considerations add layers of compliance cost and complexity.

Parties in maritime charters should incorporate clear, detailed sanctions compliance clauses.
Conduct rigorous, ongoing sanctions screening of counterparties and cargo beneficial owners.
Obtain independent legal opinions on sanctions risks before cargo acceptance.
Develop contingency plans for alternative voyage orders to mitigate operational standstills.
Enhance training for commercial and legal teams on evolving sanctions regimes and enforcement trends.
Monitor geopolitical developments affecting sanctions scope, especially in Russia-Belarus context.

---

**Source Notes:**

Sanctions Intelligence Digest, England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decision [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)

https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2036.html