![[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
The Expert Evidence
The Expert Evidence
By the CCMC Order dated 20 October 2023, each party was granted permission to call expert evidence as follows:
a chartering broking expert dealing with charter market rates, availability of business for the Vessel and other quantum matters within their expertise, including matters within their expertise bearing on the issue of mitigation of loss;
a mariner or other suitable expert dealing with whether performance of the Charterers’ orders would have required carriage of the Neftisa Cargo by the Vessel in the territorial waters of Denmark, Sweden and/or the United Kingdom (“UK”) en route to Aliaga.
Pursuant to that order I heard expert evidence from:
Mr Denis Petropoulos on behalf of the Claimant, a shipbroker with over 40 years’ experience in competitive shipbroking, and
Mr Timothy Horne on behalf of the Defendant, who also has significant experience in the chartering management and operation of vessels and marine services. He has provided consultancy and expert witness services since 2018.
I found that each of the experts did their best to assist the Court and acted in an independent and impartial manner. I was assisted by their evidence, although by the time we reached closing submissions, the number of disputed quantum issues had narrowed considerably.
- 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