![[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)
Case No: LM- 2023-000153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 31/07/2025
Before :
MR ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Between :
TONZIP MARITIME LTD | Claimant |
- and - | |
2RIVERS PTE LTD (formerly named CORAL ENERGY PTE LTD) | Defendant |
Emmet Coldrick (instructed by Wikborg Rein LLP) for the Claimant
James Shirley (instructed by HFW Middle East LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 17 (reading), 21, 22, 23, and 24 October 2024
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 2pm on 31st July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
- 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