UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Quentin Bargate and Elliot Bishop, Bargate Murray
• clearer trigger language for an “unsafe” determina - tion; • notice and consultation mechanics (often with tight time limits); • express treatment of additional premiums and kid - nap and ransom or other specialist covers; and • audit-style evidence provisions (intelligence relied upon, insurer communications, and records of Master/Company Security Officer decision-mak - ing). Sanctions and trade controls: compliance is operational, not merely legal Sanctions compliance has become one of the most commercially significant developments in shipping. Lawyers now spend significant time checking sanc - tions compliance. The key practical shift is that sanc - tions risk is no longer confined to who the counter - party is. It is increasingly embedded in the vessel’s trading pattern, beneficial ownership/control ques - tions, management arrangements, flags, financing structures, insurers, and – critically – payment routes. The “shadow fleet” problem has moved into the cen - tre of mainstream risk analysis. Enforcement atten - tion has sharpened on non-EU/UK tankers used to circumvent restrictions, with the EU continuing to list vessels and apply port access and services bans to target circumvention of the oil price cap and other measures. UK authorities have likewise announced packages targeting large numbers of tankers and related facilitators, which has had knock-on effects for counterparties and service providers who want to avoid being caught in the wake of enforcement action. Price cap compliance remains a live operational con - straint. The UK’s maritime services ban and oil price cap regime continues to be supported by detailed Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) industry guidance (updated during 2025), and busi - nesses are often dealing with the reality that banks and insurers may apply a more conservative filter than the law strictly requires. For context, industry trackers and firm briefings recorded the UK/EU move in 2025 to lower the crude price cap from the original level; the point for contracting was the volatility and the need to be able to evidence compliance rather than an exact number.
Documentary integrity and “explainability” are now deal-critical. A charter that is lawful can still become unworkable if: • a compliance team will not clear the vessel’s recent Automatic Identification System (AIS) pattern or Ship-to-Ship (STS) history; • ownership/control cannot be evidenced to the standard a bank requires; or • an insurer refuses cover or insists on conditions that the fixture did not price in. Contract drafting is responding. There is increased reliance on standard sanctions clauses (including BIMCO’s sanctions clauses for time and voyage char - tering and container trades) and, more importantly, heavier bespoke drafting around: • ongoing warranties (not just at fixture); • rights to refuse orders, terminate, or suspend per - formance for sanctions risk; • documentary production obligations (including tim - ing); and • payment re-routing and cost allocation if a bank blocks or returns funds. Contracting under stress: disruption, mitigation and payment friction A large proportion of current disputes do not arise because performance is physically impossible. They arise because performance becomes slower, more expensive, or administratively blocked. Under English law, outcomes often turn on (i) the precise contractual machinery and (ii) what was realistically possible on the evidence at the time – not on a general sense of what would have been “fair”. Force majeure and “reasonable endeavours” have become sharper tools (and sharper traps). The Supreme Court’s decision in RTI v MUR Shipping is highly relevant to modern payment and sanctions dis - putes. The Court held, in substance, that a require - ment to use “reasonable endeavours” to overcome a force majeure event did not oblige the affected party to accept an offer of non-contractual performance (in that case, payment in a different currency) absent clear wording. In practice, this has immediate draft - ing consequences for clauses dealing with alternative
666 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook