Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly named Tonzip Maritime Ltd) (Respondent) v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly named Coral Energy Pte Ltd) (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0103

Parties

Appellant(s)

2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly named Coral Energy Pte Ltd)

Respondent(s)

Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly named Tonzip Maritime Ltd)

Issue

To refuse the Charterers’ orders to load the cargo, was it sufficient for the Owners to judge a real risk of sanctions liability, or did they need to judge that sanctions liability was more likely than not to arise?

Facts

By a charterparty dated 5 November 2021 (“the Charterparty”), 2Rivers Pte Ltd (“the Charterers”, and the Appellant here) charted a vessel owned by Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“the Owners”, and the Respondent here) to carry oil from Russia to Turkey. The Charterparty included a sanctions clause (“the EPS Sanctions clause”), sub-clause (C) of which entitled the Owners to refuse Charterers’ orders in specified circumstances involving sanctions. The shipper of the oil was a company called Neftisa. The Owners’ sanctions screening checks on Neftisa revealed an association with Mikail Gutseriev, an individual sanctioned under laws which came within scope of the EPS Sanctions clause. Relying on sub-clause (C), the Owners refused to load the cargo, and called on the Charterers to provide alternative voyage orders. The Charterers instead cancelled the Charterparty. The Owners treated this as a repudiatory breach. The Owners’ claim for repudiatory breach failed before the High Court, but succeeded in the Court of Appeal. The Charterers now appeal to the Supreme Court.