![[2025] EWHC 2036 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
The Issues
The Issues
The central issue in dispute between the parties was whether the Claimant was entitled to refuse the Defendant’s orders to load the Neftisa Cargo. If the answer is ‘yes’, the Claimant was not in breach, the Defendant had no right to cancel, the Claimant validly terminated the Charterparty for repudiatory breach and subject to a time bar point, its claim succeeds. If the answer is ‘no’, the claim fails.
Whether the Claimant was entitled to refuse to load the Neftisa Cargo gives rise to three sub-issues:
What is the meaning and effect of the relevant clauses in the Charterparty?
What did the relevant sanctions legislation provide?
Did Mr Gutseriev own or control Neftisa, or was it reasonable to judge that he did?
- 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