[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)

Fecha: 31-Jul-2025

Conclusion on the Claimant’s Claim

Conclusion on the Claimant’s Claim

134.

For the reasons set out above I have concluded that the Claimant was not entitled to refuse the Defendant's orders to load the Neftisa Cargo, and its claim fails. Having not succeeded on liability, it is therefore unnecessary to rule on quantum and the remaining disputed items of damages.

135.

The issue of time bar, however, was fully argued and, should the matter go further, I will deliver my judgment below in that regard.

Heading
Mr ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC
The Hearing, representation and the evidence
The Expert Evidence
The Relevant Factual Background
The Issues
The EPS Sanctions Clause
The Claimant’s submissions on the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause
The Claimant’s submissions on “reasonable judgment” and the burden of proof
The Claimant’s submissions on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
The Defendant’s submissions on the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause
The Defendant’s submissions on sub-clause (C) of the EPS Sanctions Clause
The Defendant’s submissions on “reasonable judgment” and the burden of proof
The Defendant’s submissions on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
Discussion and conclusion in relation to the proper construction of the EPS Sanctions Clause and burden of proof
Discussion and conclusion on the evidence that can be considered when determining reasonableness of the Claimant’s decision
On the facts did the Claimant satisfy the provisions of sub-clause (C) of the EPS Sanctions Clause i.e. did the Claimant make an objectively reasonable judgment that there was an exposure to sanctions
EU Sanctions Laws
The EU Regulations
The EU Best Practices Guidance
The UK Sanctions Laws
The UK provisions in relation to control
The case law on control
The Evidence
The letter on Neftisa headed paper dated 16 November 2021
The Kommersant Newspaper article dated 22 July 2021
The Three Legal Opinions drafted by Herbert Smith and Baker and McKenzie which the Defendant provided to the Claimant in November 2021 (the “Legal Opinions”)
Discussion and conclusion in relation to whether the Claimant made an objectively reasonable judgment that there was an exposure to sanctions, in that the listed persons were subject to the risk of sa
The ECJ Decision
Conclusion on the Claimant’s Claim
Is the Claimant’s Claim time barred?
The Claimants’ submissions on the Time Bar Clause
The Defendant’s submissions on the Time Bar Clause
Conclusions