![[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Mr ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC
Mr ANDREW HOCHHAUSER KC :
Introduction:
In this action the Claimant, Tonzip Maritime Ltd, the owners of a vessel, “CATALAN SEA” (the “Vessel”), claims damages of US$1,020,099.80from the Defendant, formerly named Coral Energy Pte Ltd, now called 2Rivers PTE Ltd, in respect of the Defendant’s alleged failure to perform and repudiatory breach of a charterparty to which I will refer below. The Defendant denies the claim and counterclaims the sum of US$233,600 in respect of the Claimant’s alleged breach of that charterparty. Subject to liability, there were a number of issues relating to the Claimant’s quantum claim, but these narrowed as the trial progressed.
- 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