(1) Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Appellant/Claimant) v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (Respondent/Defendant) (2) Tonzip Maritime (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly named Tonzip Maritime Ltd) (Appellant/Claimant) v 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly named Coral Energy Pte Ltd) (Respondent/Defendant)
Wednesday 06 – Thursday 07 May 2026
(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 4 September 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 31 July 2025 following trial.
Tonzip Maritime Ltd chartered the Catalan Sea to 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly Coral Energy) to carry oil from Russia to Turkey under a charterparty containing an EPS Sanctions Clause. The cargo supplier was allegedly linked to a UK‑ and EU‑sanctioned individual. Relying on perceived sanctions risk, Tonzip refused to load the cargo. 2Rivers cancelled the charter; Tonzip treated this as repudiation.
The dispute turned on whether Tonzip was entitled to refuse loading under the sanctions clause, including whether there was a real sanctions risk and whether Tonzip’s judgment was objectively reasonable. The court held that although the clause allowed refusal based on reasonable judgment, Tonzip’s decision was not objectively reasonable.
(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 14 October 2025 the Appellant appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 31 July 2025 and the order being made on 23 September 2025.
Tonzip Maritime Ltd chartered the Catalan Sea to 2Rivers Pte Ltd (formerly Coral Energy) to carry oil from Russia to Turkey under a charterparty containing an EPS Sanctions Clause. The cargo supplier was allegedly linked to a UK‑ and EU‑sanctioned individual. Relying on perceived sanctions risk, Tonzip refused to load the cargo. 2Rivers cancelled the charter; Tonzip treated this as repudiation.
The dispute turned on whether Tonzip was entitled to refuse loading under the sanctions clause, including whether there was a real sanctions risk and whether Tonzip’s judgment was objectively reasonable. The court held that although the clause allowed refusal based on reasonable judgment, Tonzip’s decision was not objectively reasonable.
View Hearing:
Day 1