Paul Crane Partner
Russian sanctions - a force majeure to be reckoned with?
MUR Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd  EWHC 467 (Comm)
This dispute related to Owners’ purported exercise of a force majeure provision in a contract of affreightment in response to Charterers’ difficulties paying freight in US dollars (the contractual currency of payment) due to the impact of US sanctions on Russia. Allowing an appeal from the arbitral tribunal’s decision on this point, the Court held that the “reasonable endeavours” requirement in force majeure clauses did not require Owners to accept non-contractual performance and so did not oblige Owners in this case to accept payment in Euros instead of US dollars.
Whilst the decision relates to 2018 sanctions on Russian entities, it will be equally relevant in relation to the February/March 2022 sanctions on Russia following on from events in Ukraine.
The background facts
Owners concluded a Contract of Affreightment (“COA”) with Charterers in June 2016, pursuant to which Owners agreed to carry bauxite for Charterers from Conakry, Guinea to Dneprobugsky, Ukraine.
The COA contained a term requiring payment in US dollars as well as a force majeure (“FM”) clause specifying that a FM event had to meet a number of criteria, including that “it cannot be overcome by reasonable endeavours from the Party affected”.
In April 2018, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) applied sanctions to Charterers’ parent company. This led to Owners invoking the FM clause in the COA by sending a FM Notice, in which they stated that it would be a breach of sanctions for Owners to continue with the performance of the COA and that the sanctions would prevent US dollar payments as required under the COA.
Charterers disagreed, contending that sanctions would not interfere with cargo operations, that payment could be made in Euros, and that Owners, being a Dutch company, were not a “US person” caught by sanctions.
Owners declined to nominate ships under the COA, albeit for a relatively short period of time until they obtained an exempting licence. They relied on FM and argued that if monetary transfers from Charterers to Owners were restricted, Owners could not be expected to load and discharge without receiving payment in accordance with the COA.
Charterers obtained alternative tonnage for the relevant period of time and brought a claim for the additional costs incurred.
The tribunal accepted that both “primary” and “secondary” sanctions had drastic effects on commercial transactions and that commercial counterparties would understandably be deterred from trading with a sanctioned party as bank finance was likely to be frozen and underwriters would be reluctant to insure normal trading activities. Therefore, Owners’ FM case would have succeeded, in the tribunal’s view, bar its finding that the FM event could have been overcome by “reasonable endeavours”, namely accepting payment in Euros. Owners’ bank could have credited them with the equivalent US dollars and Charterers had agreed to make up any currency exchange loss or shortfall.
The Commercial Court decision
Owners appealed, arguing that the sanctions had affected Charterers’ ability to make payment under the COA and that the tribunal was wrong to find that reasonable endeavours extended to accepting payment in a different currency than that contractually agreed.
There were two aspects to Owners’ FM case: (1) the “penalties” aspect (namely that Owners would have been exposed to penalties as a matter of US sanctions law); and (2) the “payments” aspect (namely that banks would not in practice clear US dollars payments for Charterers without investigation, and would exercise extreme caution before crediting a payment).
Owners argued that there was no authority to support the tribunal’s view that reasonable endeavours extended to requiring the affected party to agree to vary the terms of the contract. On the contrary, in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (“the Vancouver Strikes” case)  AC 691 (HL), it was held that the exercise of reasonable endeavours did not require the affected party to agree to vary the terms of the contract or to agree to non-contractual performance.
Furthermore, if contractual rights were made subject to what was reasonable in any particular case, then this would make rights and obligations under commercial contracts tenuous and uncertain.
As to Owners’ obligation to load and discharge cargo, Owners argued that they could not be expected to continue without being paid. Charterers’ inability to make contractual payments would delay performance, not least because Owners would be entitled to exercise a lien on the cargo for unpaid freight.
Finally, Owners argued that in any event, where a contracting party finds itself in a doubtful position and exposed to possible peril, it is entitled to take reasonable time to review the situation.
Charterers argued that as a transfer made by Charterers in Euros would be “automatically” converted into US dollars in Owners’ bank account, with all additional charges to be borne by Charterers, accepting such payment qualified as reasonable endeavours. Since Owners were not being asked to give up a right to receive US dollars, there was no commercial difference between the performance offered and the performance required.
Charterers went further and argued that if the funds had been transferred in Euros and these were “automatically” credited in US dollars, Charterers’ contractual obligations would be performed.
Charterers also submitted that the tribunal should not have found that there was a sufficient causal connection between non-payment of freight and prevention of or delay in loading or discharging. The currency clause related only to payment and had no effect on the obligations relating and critical to loading or discharging. Payment in Euros would have unblocked any obstacle to loading and discharging and ultimately this was what mattered.
In Charterers’ view also, FM clauses should be read as requiring a physical prevention or legal impossibility. Here, the sanctions did not (as held by the tribunal) lead to the consequence that performance of the COA was physically or legally impossible.
The Court held that the COA could not be construed as giving Charterers an option to pay in the currency of their choosing. The Court also held that the award did not find that a payment in Euros would “automatically” be credited upon receipt, but rather that Owners’ bank “could have credited” Owners with US dollars. It concluded that Charterers were contractually required to pay in US dollars.
As to whether the “reasonable endeavours” clause could require a party to accept a non-contractual payment, the Court stated that the exercise of reasonable endeavours required endeavours towards the performance of that bargain; not towards a performance directed towards achieving a different result which formed no part of the parties’ agreement. Owners were entitled to require the contract to be performed in accordance with its terms.
The Court noted the tribunal’s finding that, whilst legally US dollar payments were still permitted, this did not mean in practice that they could be made. Further, that it was highly probable that the US intermediary banks would have initially stopped the transfer on the basis of Charterers’ status as a blocked party until the bank could investigate whether the transaction complied with US sanctions requirements. In such situations, loading or discharging would remain physically possible, but the parties to the FM clause nevertheless contemplated that these restrictions might, on appropriate facts, prevent or delay loading or discharge. The Court, therefore, dismissed Charterers’ argument that the payment obligation was separate to the loading/discharging obligation and added that the obligation to pay freight in the agreed contractual currency was an important contractual obligation. The Court agreed with Owners that if a contractual right could turn on what was reasonable in a case, then the contract would be beset by uncertainty which was to be avoided in commercial transactions.
The Court also agreed that Owners were entitled to take reasonable time to consider their next steps. Owners’ reaction to the sanctions (as a secondary party) was reasonable and the tribunal was entitled to find that there was no break in the chain of causation.
The Court has demonstrated an understanding of the far-reaching implications of sanctions and their effects on secondary parties. While the decision suggests that the English courts may be sympathetic to parties who err on the side of caution when dealing with sanctioned parties, it is still important for potentially affected parties to consider carefully the steps they take in this regard and to obtain legal advice as necessary.
More generally, where a FM clause includes a provision that the clause will not apply where “reasonable endeavours” could overcome the FM event, the Court will not expect parties to accept performance achieving a different result not contemplated by the underlying agreement.
Finally, the Court’s comments on a party’s right to pause and consider the implications of sanctions before proceeding may be relevant to other perils such as claims for delay in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Related news & insights
News / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening
23-11-2022 / Insurance, Maritime, Real Estate
We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow. Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors.
News / Shipping E-brief November 2022
17-11-2022 / Maritime
The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
News / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?
15-11-2022 / Maritime
In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.
News / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage
09-11-2022 / Maritime
CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk)  EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.
News / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance
09-11-2022 / Maritime
Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd  EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.
News / “Due” means due!
03-11-2022 / Maritime
Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1)  EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.