Shipping 2026

UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Quentin Bargate and Elliot Bishop, Bargate Murray

An English Law Perspective for International Businesses Introduction: uncertainty to continue throughout 2026 Shipping has always been cyclical with uncertainty fluctuating but ever present. The present cycle is being driven as much by non-commercial forces as by freight fundamentals. This includes route disruption, increased sanctions enforcement, emissions controls pushing up pricing, and global political uncertainty. These variables are changing the economics of ship - ping. For parties using English law (which is still the most popular choice for maritime and trade contracts), the most visible shift is the premium now placed on operationally workable risk allocation. Commercial shipping teams are not only asking what the contract says, but whether it provides a usable decision-mak - ing framework when, for example, a route or port sud - denly becomes unsafe, an additional war risk premium is demanded, or a bank blocks a payment. English law remains popular because it is familiar, heavily tested and comparatively predictable. But it does not remove the need for careful drafting, disci - plined contemporaneous record-keeping, and front- end due diligence that is realistic about what can go wrong in performance. What follows is a more specific account of the themes that are seen repeatedly in UK/English law shipping work, with concrete regulatory and case-law reference points where they affect contracting and disputes in 2026. Geopolitics and chokepoints: routing risk is now negotiated, not assumed The last two years have made it plain that major ship - ping corridors can become commercially unattractive (or uninsurable at sensible cost) at short notice. For many operators, the practical question is no longer “what is the shortest route?” but “what is the route that remains bankable and insurable on the day, and how do we evidence the decision if challenged?” All this is important from a legal and commercial per - spective. Diversions are not merely operational; they

affect laycan and ETA/ETD commitments, bunker con - sumption, speed/consumption warranties, emissions exposure, and (in a sale chain) documentary timing. Unless the contract clearly allocates decision rights and consequences, the dispute tends to re-appear as: • an “unsafe port/unsafe route” argument; • a war risks clause dispute; • an off-hire/performance/time counting dispute; or • a deviation/cargo claim risk issue. War risks clauses are increasingly doing more work than many parties expected. Market practice con - tinues to lean heavily on the Baltic and International Maritime Council’s (BIMCO) CONWARTIME/VOYWAR architecture (and bespoke rider clauses), with own - ers seeking broad discretion to refuse orders or alter routes where there is a reasonable exposure to “War Risks”. The wording of the clause matters, because many dis - putes turn on whether it requires a material change in risk, who makes the judgment call, what evidence supports it, and whether the owner must accept miti - gations offered by the charterer (eg, armed guards, routing constraints or convoy). BIMCO’s standard definitions and structure remain a common baseline in negotiations. The Supreme Court has reinforced the need to read risk-allocation clauses as real allocation clauses. In Herculito Maritime v Gunvor (The Polar) , the Supreme Court considered war risks and insur - ance allocation provisions (including an additional Gulf of Aden clause and an amended British Petroleum Voyage Charterparty (BPVOY) war risks clause), and examined whether the contractual scheme precluded the owner from recovering losses that sat within the risk the parties had agreed would be insured and paid for via additional premium mechanisms. The decision is regularly cited in current drafting debates because it underlines that where parties build a specific insur - ance/premium allocation into the contract, tribunals and courts will treat that structure seriously. Insurance is now intertwined with routing. Additional war risk premiums, security requirements and under - writer approvals can be commercially decisive, driving a drafting trend towards:

665 CHAMBERS.COM