Executive Summary
This case involves Tonzip Maritime Ltd (Claimant) suing 2Rivers PTE Ltd (Defendant) over a breach of charterparty related to the refusal to load oil cargo from Neftisa, a Russian company linked to sanctioned individual Mikail Gutseriev. The Defendant ordered the vessel "CATALAN SEA" to carry Neftisa cargo from Primorsk (Russia) to Aliaga (Turkey). The Claimant refused to load due to sanctions risks under UK and EU laws targeting Gutseriev, who was indirectly linked to Neftisa. The court examined contractual clauses on sanctions compliance and the applicability of UK and EU sanctions laws, ultimately focusing on the quantum of damages.
Sanctions Highlights
- The Charterparty included an EPS Sanctions Clause requiring compliance with UK and EU sanctions laws, specifically the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (SAMLA) and EU restrictive measures on Belarus and designated persons.
- Mikail Gutseriev, sanctioned by the EU (June 2021) and UK (August 2021), was linked to Neftisa as its indirect owner and former Chairman.
- Loading Neftisa cargo risked violating sanctions by making funds available to a designated person.
- The Claimant’s refusal to load was based on reasonable judgment to avoid sanctions exposure.
- Defendant provided legal opinions disputing the sanctions risk, but the Claimant maintained its position.
Emerging Risks
- Increased scrutiny on indirect ownership and control in sanctions compliance, especially involving Russian entities linked to sanctioned individuals.
- Potential liability for charterers and vessel owners for indirect facilitation of sanctioned parties.
- Legal uncertainty in cross-jurisdictional sanctions enforcement, given the vessel’s operations in UK, EU, and international waters.
- Risk of contractual disputes escalating due to ambiguous sanctions clauses and evolving sanctions regimes.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case highlights the extension of UK and EU sanctions beyond direct Russian targets to Belarus-linked individuals and entities.
- It underscores the geopolitical tension involving Russia, Belarus, and Western sanctions regimes.
- Turkey’s role as a Mediterranean destination port reflects its strategic position in regional energy trade amid sanctions.
- The involvement of multiple jurisdictions (UK, EU, Russia, Turkey) complicates enforcement and compliance.
- The case reflects broader Western efforts to disrupt Russian and Belarusian economic interests through maritime trade controls.
Economic Intelligence
- The dispute involves over US$1 million in damages, reflecting significant commercial stakes in sanctioned commodity shipments.
- Sanctions compliance is materially affecting oil trade routes and contractual performance in the Baltic and Mediterranean regions.
- The case illustrates the financial risks for shipping companies operating in sanctioned environments.
- Legal costs and operational delays from sanctions-related disputes may increase insurance and chartering costs.
- The evolving sanctions landscape is driving demand for enhanced due diligence and legal risk management in maritime commerce.
Strategic Recommendations
- Parties engaged in maritime trade with Russian or Belarus-linked entities must implement rigorous sanctions screening and compliance protocols.
- Contracts should include clear, detailed sanctions clauses with defined procedures for risk assessment and alternative orders.
- Legal teams should monitor sanctions developments closely and obtain timely, jurisdiction-specific legal opinions.
- Shipping companies should train crews and management on sanctions risks and reporting obligations.
- Consider diversifying trade routes and cargo sources to mitigate exposure to sanctioned parties and reduce litigation risk.
---
**Source Notes:**
Case Title: *Tonzip Maritime Ltd v 2Rivers PTE Ltd* [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)
Link: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/2036.html