Shipping 2026 Comparisons

In England and Wales, specialist maritime and shipping disputes are primarily determined by the Admiralty Court, which forms part of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. The principal statutory basis for its jurisdiction is the Senior Courts Act 1981 (in particular Sections 20–21, which define the Admiralty jurisdiction and the circumstances in which proceedings may be brought in rem). Admiralty procedure is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), notably CPR Part 61 and the associated Practice Direction, together with the Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide. 

In practice, the Admiralty Court deals with (amongst other things) ship arrests and judicial sales, enforcement of ship mortgages, collision and allision claims, salvage and towage disputes, cargo and bill of lading claims (including misdelivery), claims arising out of charterparties where an in rem remedy is sought, bunker and necessaries claims (where the statutory tests are met), limitation of liability issues and claims for personal injury or loss of life connected with a ship’s operation. For marina-based claims for unpaid marina dues, Section 20(2)(n) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 applies.

However, for contractual shipping disputes, the most popular choice, dictated by the material contract, is a reference to London maritime arbitration (very commonly under London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) terms) or less frequently in the Commercial Court.

The United Kingdom applies port state control through the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (the “Paris MoU”). In the UK, port state control inspections are carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) under the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2025 and related statutory powers.

In broad terms, the MCA may board and inspect foreign-flag ships calling at UK ports/anchorages, require production of certificates, record deficiencies, impose operational restrictions, and detain a ship where deficiencies are sufficiently serious. In relation to marine casualties, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) conducts no-blame safety investigations, while the MCA (and, where relevant, the police and prosecuting authorities) may investigate and enforce offences. For significant pollution incidents and wrecks, the Secretary of State’s Representative (SOSREP) may exercise intervention powers to protect safety and the environment, including directing salvage/wreck removal operations and requiring preventive action.

The core domestic legislation for UK ship registration is the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (Part II and associated provisions), supplemented by the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1993 (as amended) and related secondary legislation.

Registration is administered by the UK Ship Register, operated by the MCA on behalf of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen. The UK register comprises a number of “parts”, including (amongst others) Part I (the main register), Part II (fishing vessels), Part III (the Small Ships Register) and Part IV (bareboat charter registration).

UK registration is generally restricted to “qualified” owners/charterers as prescribed by the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Registration Regulations. In practice, qualification can often be satisfied by UK nationals and UK-incorporated companies (and certain other categories), which means that foreign beneficial ownership is commonly accommodated through an appropriate corporate or trust structure with a qualifying registered owner.

Registration is normally effected on completion/delivery of the vessel, once the requisite evidence of title is available and the registration formalities can be satisfied. During construction, parties typically protect their position through contractual security (for example, security over the shipbuilding contract and refund guarantees), while preparing the documentation needed for prompt registration and mortgage registration on delivery.

UK law permits provisional (temporary) registration, typically for a limited period to allow a vessel to operate while outstanding registration formalities are completed. Separately, the UK Ship Register provides for bareboat charter registration (Part IV) for vessels on bareboat charter to a qualifying UK charterer for the duration of the charter.

Full “dual registration” (ie, two concurrent registrations conferring nationality) is not generally permitted. However, bareboat charter arrangements can, in effect, operate alongside an underlying “primary” registry, with the primary registry’s nationality element typically suspended for the bareboat period, depending on the relevant foreign law and registry practice.

Mortgages over UK-registered ships are recorded by the UK Ship Register (Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen/MCA) on the register for the relevant part. A registered mortgage is created/registered by lodging the mortgage instrument in the prescribed form together with the required particulars (including the vessel details, the mortgagor and mortgagee details and execution evidence) and payment of the applicable fee.

In practice, the Registrar will require appropriately executed documents (including corporate authority where relevant), and where documents are not in English, a certified translation is typically provided. Scanned copies are commonly accepted for processing, subject to any requirements for wet-ink signatures and/or production of originals for particular applications.

The UK ships register is a public record in the sense that registration details may be obtained by third parties. In practice, a third party can obtain an official extract (commonly a “Transcript of Registry”) from the UK Ship Register for a particular vessel upon request and payment of the relevant fee.

The transcript typically confirms key particulars such as the vessel’s registered ownership, registered mortgages and other registered entries. This is routinely used by financiers, counterparties and advisers as part of due diligence and enforcement planning.

English law-governed ship finance remains common in transactions with a UK nexus and in international financings choosing English law and jurisdiction/arbitration. Typical debt financings are documented on a facility agreement (often Loan Market Association-style), with conditions precedent, representations, undertakings and events of default, together with comprehensive security and covenant packages.

Security commonly includes (as applicable) a first-priority registered ship mortgage, assignments of earnings and charter hire, insurances and requisition compensation, charges over accounts (including a retention or earnings account), share security over the owning SPV, guarantees (corporate and, where appropriate, personal) and security over material contracts. Depending on the structure, financiers may also seek security over management agreements, hedging arrangements and intercompany receivables, and may require cash collateral or reserves (eg, for dry-docking) as part of the overall risk allocation.

Leasing and sale-and-leaseback structures are widely used in the international shipping market and are frequently documented and/or supported from London, including transactions involving alternative credit providers and, in particular, overseas institutions. The key commercial drivers include balance sheet treatment, access to longer tenors, and the ability to match amortisation profiles to employment.

A lessor/lessee relationship is typically asset-based: the lessor retains title and the lessee’s core obligation is to pay hire and return the vessel (or purchase it under an option), with termination/re-delivery and repossession rights as central remedies. By contrast, lender/borrower structures are credit-based: the borrower owns the asset and the lender’s primary remedy is enforcement of security (including a mortgage sale) and contractual acceleration. In practice, English courts and arbitral tribunals will enforce both types of arrangements according to their terms, but the procedural route differs: mortgage enforcement in England commonly involves arrest and judicial sale in the Admiralty Court, whereas repossession under a lease is usually pursued through contractual termination and delivery up (and, where needed, court relief such as injunctions), alongside any security and guarantees.

Owner and interested-party liability for pollution and wreck removal in the UK is shaped by a mixture of international conventions and domestic statutes. Key conventions include the 1992 Civil Liability Convention (CLC) and 1992 Fund Convention (and the Supplementary Fund where applicable) for persistent oil pollution, the 2001 Bunkers Convention for bunker oil pollution from any ship, and the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007.

These regimes are implemented primarily through the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended) and associated regulations, imposing strict liability in defined circumstances, compulsory insurance and direct action against insurers, together with statutory powers for intervention, clean-up and recovery of costs. Wreck removal is supported in particular by the Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011 (which inserts relevant provisions into the Merchant Shipping Act 1995) and by domestic harbour and environmental legislation, depending on the location and nature of the incident.

Collision liability in the UK is influenced by the Brussels Collision Convention 1910 (as implemented domestically), together with the general principles of English tort and maritime law, and the Collision Regulations (COLREGs), which set the navigational rules relevant to fault and causation.

Salvage is primarily governed by the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (implemented in the UK) and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, supplemented in practice by standard-form salvage agreements (notably Lloyd’s Open Form) and established Admiralty Court and arbitration practice. Salvage awards and special compensation issues are typically determined by reference to the convention framework and the contractual terms agreed.

The UK applies the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC), and has implemented subsequent increases to the limitation amounts (the IMO 2012 amendments) in domestic law.

The relevant domestic framework is found in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended) and associated secondary legislation/orders implementing the LLMC regime. In broad terms, limitation amounts are calculated by reference to the vessel’s gross tonnage and expressed in Special Drawing Rights (SDR), converted at the applicable rate.

The UK is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (VCLT), and English courts routinely apply the VCLT interpretative principles as part of the approach to treaty interpretation (including where those principles reflect customary international law). Accordingly, the UK Supreme Court’s use of the VCLT approach in interpreting the LLMC in MSC Flaminia is consistent with the general position in this jurisdiction.

A limitation fund may be constituted in England and Wales by commencing an Admiralty claim and applying to the court for an order to constitute the fund. The fund may be set up by any person entitled to limit (typically the shipowner, demise charterer, manager, operator and, in some cases, the liability insurer), depending on the claim and the LLMC provisions.

The amount is calculated by reference to the applicable LLMC limits (or other relevant limitation regime) using the vessel’s gross tonnage and the SDR-based formula, with interest (where ordered) from the relevant date. The court will usually require security to be provided in a form acceptable to it, which may be by payment into court or by the provision of an acceptable guarantee/undertaking (the acceptability of which will depend on the circumstances and the parties’ positions).

The UK has ratified the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC), and it is implemented through domestic regulations enforced by the MCA. Domestic law on seafarers’ rights and safety includes the MLC implementing regulations, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and extensive secondary legislation on maritime health and safety, hours of work and rest, training and certification.

General employment and safety legislation may also apply depending on the individual’s status and the ship’s operations, including the Employment Rights Act 1996 (as modified for seafarers), the Equality Act 2010 and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (as applied offshore/at sea through specific maritime regulations).

The Hague-Visby Rules apply in the UK by virtue of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 (COGSA 1971). The UK is not a party to the Hamburg Rules or the Rotterdam Rules. Domestic carriage and bill of lading issues are also governed by English common law and (in relation to contractual rights under bills, sea waybills and delivery orders) the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (COGSA 1992).

Charterparty disputes are determined by the applicable contract law principles (and any contractual incorporation of the Hague-Visby Rules), with London arbitration remaining a common forum.

Title to sue under a bill of lading is principally determined by COGSA 1992. In broad terms, the “lawful holder” of the bill of lading (and, in the case of a sea waybill, the person entitled to delivery) acquires the carrier’s contractual obligations and the corresponding rights of suit, provided the statutory conditions are met.

COGSA 1992 effects a statutory transfer of rights of suit (rather than a conventional assignment), but English law also recognises assignment of contractual rights in principle. In practice, however, COGSA 1992 is the primary mechanism relied on for transfer of rights and liabilities under bills of lading in the ordinary course of trade.

Where the Hague-Visby Rules apply, the carrier’s liability is subject to the standard defences and limits in the Rules, including the package/kilogram limitation (currently 666.67 SDR per package or unit, or 2 SDR per kilogram of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged, whichever is higher), subject to any declaration of value and subject to the loss of limitation in cases of intent/recklessness within the Rules’ meaning.

The position can differ depending on whether the shipowner is the contractual carrier or the actual carrier. The contractual carrier is liable on the bill of lading contract; the actual carrier (including the shipowner where it is not the contractual carrier) may be liable in tort/bailment, but is commonly protected by Himalaya clauses and contractual defences/limits extended to servants, agents and subcontractors. In addition, shipowners and other limiters may seek to rely on global limitation under the LLMC regime, where applicable, as a further cap on overall exposure.

English law generally permits a carrier to pursue the shipper for misdeclaration or misdescription of cargo, depending on the legal basis and facts. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, the shipper gives a statutory guarantee as to the accuracy of marks, number, quantity and weight as furnished by it (Article III rule 5), and the shipper may be liable to indemnify the carrier for losses arising from inaccuracy. There are also specific provisions concerning dangerous goods (Article IV rule 6) and corresponding common law rights.

The leading English authority in the dangerous goods context remains Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA (The “Giannis NK”), where the shipper’s strict liability to indemnify the carrier was confirmed in circumstances involving dangerous cargo. In practice, claims are fact-sensitive and often turn on the wording of the contract of carriage/charterparty, the extent of the shipper’s knowledge, and the causal link between the misdeclaration and the loss.

Where the Hague-Visby Rules apply, suit against the carrier is time-barred unless proceedings are brought within one year of delivery of the goods or the date when they should have been delivered (Article III rule 6). In November 2024, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that this one-year time bar can apply to misdelivery claims even if the misdelivery occurs after discharge.

Where the Rules do not apply, the usual English limitation periods are generally six years for contract and six years for tort (subject to specific statutory regimes and extension provisions). Time limits under the Hague-Visby Rules can be extended by agreement between the parties, and such extensions are commonly recorded by correspondence or standstill agreements.

The UK is not party to the 1952 or 1999 Arrest Conventions. Ship arrests in England and Wales are governed by domestic law, principally the Senior Courts Act 1981 (Sections 20–21), CPR Part 61 and the associated Practice Direction, and the Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide.

The Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to order the arrest of a ship (and, in appropriate cases, other property such as cargo) to obtain security for maritime claims falling within the statutory categories, subject to the requirements for bringing an action in rem.

English law recognises a narrow class of maritime liens, which arise by operation of law and attach to the vessel from the moment the cause of action arises. The traditional categories are: (i) salvage; (ii) damage done by a ship (tort); (iii) seamen’s wages (and certain master’s claims); and (iv) bottomry (now largely obsolete).

English law distinguishes between maritime liens and the wider range of “statutory rights in rem” (often referred to colloquially as maritime claims) under the Senior Courts Act 1981. Personal injury claims of crew do not generally give rise to a maritime lien, but they may fall within the statutory in rem jurisdiction (and therefore support arrest) if the statutory conditions are met. Liabilities arising under contracts for chartering a vessel (eg, charterparty disputes) are maritime claims within the statutory categories (for example, a claim arising out of an agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship), but arrest in rem will depend on satisfying the ownership/demise charterer requirements in Section 21.

Time limits depend on the underlying cause of action and any applicable convention/statute; maritime liens are not subject to a fixed statutory expiry date, but may be defeated by judicial sale (which generally delivers the ship free of liens) and may be affected in practice by delay (laches) and evidential issues.

For most statutory in rem claims in England and Wales, the claimant must show that the person who would be liable in personam was the owner or demise charterer of the vessel when the cause of action arose, and that the relevant ownership/beneficial ownership condition is met at the time proceedings are commenced. In that sense, a nexus to a person liable in personam is generally required.

Maritime liens are different: they attach to the ship itself and can be enforced in rem regardless of changes in ownership after the lien has arisen. Accordingly, where a true maritime lien exists, a vessel may be arrested notwithstanding that the current owner is not personally liable on the merits.

England does not recognise a maritime lien for the supply of bunkers/necessaries. A bunker supplier may, however, have a statutory right in rem for “goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance” under the Senior Courts Act 1981, provided the statutory ownership requirements are met.

In practical terms, where bunkers are ordered by and supplied on the credit of a time charterer (not being a demise charterer), the supplier will usually have contractual recourse against the charterer but will often be unable to arrest the ship in rem, because the owner is not the relevant person liable in personam. The position can differ where the bunkers are ordered by the owner or a demise charterer, or where the charterer is in fact a demise charterer. Whether the claimant is the contractual supplier or the physical supplier may matter to entitlement and quantum, because privity and chain-contract issues can affect who has a claim.

To arrest a vessel in England and Wales, the claimant must issue an Admiralty claim form in rem and apply (usually without notice) for the issue of a warrant of arrest. The application is supported by a witness statement/affidavit verifying the claim, the grounds for arrest and the relevant ownership/beneficial ownership facts. The claimant must also provide an undertaking to the Admiralty Marshal for the Marshal’s fees and expenses, and arrange service/execution.

The court will generally accept copies of supporting documents at the arrest stage, but reliable evidence of authority and ownership is important. Documents in a foreign language should be accompanied by a certified translation. The court does not typically require the arresting party to provide security for damages as a condition of arrest, but the claimant is exposed to potential costs consequences and (in the rare case of wrongful arrest meeting the high threshold) damages.

The Admiralty Court’s in rem jurisdiction extends beyond ships and can include other property such as cargo, and proceedings can be brought to enforce certain claims against freight as property of the person liable, depending on the statutory basis and factual ownership.

Arrest of bunkers as separate property is less common in practice, largely because bunkers may be owned by parties other than the shipowner (eg, a charterer) and issues of identification and ownership arise. However, where bunkers or freight are the property of a person liable in personam and the statutory tests are met, the court can make orders aimed at securing the claim. In practice, parties often rely on arrest of the vessel (where available) and/or freezing relief or third-party debt orders as the more straightforward means of obtaining security.

England and Wales permits “sister-ship” arrest, but only on a beneficial ownership basis. In broad terms, where the claimant has a statutory right in rem against a ship in respect of a claim against a particular person, the claimant may arrest another ship which, at the time proceedings are commenced, is beneficially owned as respects all the shares by that same person.

England does not recognise a broader “associated ship” concept based solely on common control; beneficial ownership of all shares (or, for some claims, ownership/demise charter status) is the key test.

Common alternatives (or complements) to arrest in England and Wales include freezing injunctions (Mareva relief) to restrain dissipation of assets, proprietary injunctions, and third-party debt orders. In support of arbitration, the court has powers under Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (and Section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981) to grant interim measures, including freezing relief, where the statutory requirements are met.

Parties also frequently obtain contractual security such as P&I club letters of undertaking (LOUs), bank guarantees or escrow arrangements, and may seek security for costs in appropriate litigation/arbitration circumstances.

An arrested vessel can be released by (i) providing security acceptable to the court (commonly by paying money into court, or providing bail), (ii) providing alternative security agreed with the claimant (often a P&I club LOU), and/or (iii) successfully applying to set aside the arrest (for example, where the statutory basis is not made out).

In practice, P&I club LOUs are routinely accepted in appropriate cases by agreement and, where necessary, can be embodied in a court order. Foreign bank guarantees can also be acceptable, but the court will scrutinise form, issuer creditworthiness and enforceability; issues such as governing law, jurisdiction and demand mechanics often determine whether a particular guarantee is suitable.

Judicial sale in the Admiralty Court is typically ordered where (i) the claimant has obtained judgment, (ii) the vessel is a wasting asset or the costs of maintaining it are disproportionate, or (iii) the parties՚ consent. The court orders appraisement and sale by the Admiralty Marshal, who conducts the sale (traditionally by sealed bids/tender, though the procedure can be adapted). Private sale is not the default, but the court may approve an alternative sale process where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the parties and creditors.

From arrest to sale, the vessel is in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal; the arresting party will ordinarily be required to fund the Marshal’s expenses and custodianship initially, with those expenses enjoying high priority and being reimbursed out of sale proceeds. The distribution of proceeds follows established priorities: Marshal’s expenses and costs of sale first, then (broadly) maritime liens (such as salvage and seamen’s wages) and certain possessory liens, followed by registered mortgages (ranked by order of registration) and then other statutory in rem claims, subject to case-specific issues.

The UK does not have a direct equivalent to US Chapter 11, but it has a sophisticated corporate rescue framework, including administration, company voluntary arrangements and restructuring plans under the Companies Act 2006 (Part 26A). These regimes can provide moratorium-like protection and facilitate restructuring.

Where an owner is subject to US Chapter 11 or other foreign insolvency proceedings, English courts may recognise and grant relief in support under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (implementing the UNCITRAL Model Law), including stays of proceedings and relief affecting enforcement. Accordingly, while the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to arrest and sell a vessel, in practice the court will consider recognition/stay issues and the balance of interests; arrest may be stayed or security arrangements adjusted where appropriate.

Damages for wrongful arrest are available in England and Wales only on a high threshold: the claimant must generally show that the arresting party acted in bad faith (malice) or with gross negligence in obtaining the arrest. If that threshold is not met, the usual remedy is costs rather than damages.

The court will consider the claimant’s conduct and the reasonableness of the steps taken to investigate ownership and the legal basis for arrest. Prompt applications to set aside an arrest may be made where jurisdictional or statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Passenger claims in the UK are governed by a combination of domestic law and the Athens Convention regime as given effect through retained Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 and implementing domestic regulations, including the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers by Sea) Regulations 2012.

The Athens regime provides a two-year limitation period (subject to the Convention’s rules on when time starts to run) and sets out liability standards and limits (expressed in SDR) for death/personal injury and luggage. Passenger personal injury claims do not generally constitute a maritime lien under English law, but they are within the Admiralty Court’s statutory in rem jurisdiction (subject to the Section 21 requirements) and therefore may constitute a “maritime claim” capable of supporting arrest in appropriate cases.

English courts generally recognise and enforce governing law and jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading, subject to ordinary contract principles and any applicable statutory constraints. Where a bill contains an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause, the English court will ordinarily stay proceedings in favour of the chosen forum unless there is strong reason not to.

Post-Brexit, enforcement and anti-suit relief issues are primarily addressed under English common law and any applicable international instruments (as relevant). In practice, properly drafted jurisdiction clauses in shipping documents are routinely upheld.

English courts will generally enforce arbitration clauses (and law/jurisdiction clauses) incorporated from a charterparty into a bill of lading, provided incorporation is effective as a matter of construction. This typically requires clear wording identifying the relevant charterparty and incorporating its dispute resolution clause.

Where incorporation is effective, the court will generally grant a stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, and will support arbitration through interim measures where appropriate.

The UK is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Convention is implemented domestically by the Arbitration Act 1996, in particular Sections 100–104 and related provisions governing recognition and enforcement of Convention awards.

English courts take a pro-enforcement approach, subject to the Convention grounds for refusal (which are construed narrowly).

The Admiralty Court can order the arrest of a vessel and/or grant interim relief to obtain security even where the merits are subject to foreign arbitration or foreign court jurisdiction, provided the statutory requirements for the in rem claim (or other relief) are met.

In practice, the court may permit arrest to stand as security while staying the substantive proceedings in favour of the agreed forum. In support of arbitration, the court may also exercise its powers under Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to grant interim measures where the statutory conditions (including urgency/necessity) are satisfied.

London is a major centre for maritime arbitration. The LMAA provides widely used procedural terms and a panel/market of specialist maritime arbitrators for charterparty, bill of lading, shipbuilding and related disputes.

In addition, institutions such as the London Court of International Arbitration may be used for maritime disputes, but the LMAA framework remains the predominant specialist option in this jurisdiction.

Remedies in England and Wales where proceedings are commenced in breach of a foreign jurisdiction or arbitration clause include applying for a stay of the English proceedings (or to set aside service out) and seeking an anti-suit injunction to restrain the foreign proceedings (where the English court has jurisdiction and it is appropriate to grant such relief).

A party may also seek damages for breach of an arbitration agreement in appropriate circumstances, and will typically pursue costs on an indemnity basis where the breach is clear and the court considers it just to do so. Contractual rights to security or to terminate may also be engaged depending on the underlying contract.

The UK operates an elective tonnage tax regime for qualifying shipping companies, which (broadly) taxes certain shipping profits by reference to the net tonnage of operated ships rather than actual profits, subject to detailed eligibility conditions and compliance requirements.

In addition, the UK capital allowances regime may provide relief for qualifying expenditure (subject to the specific facts and any ring-fencing rules), and the wider UK corporate tax framework (including group relief and financing deductibility rules) will apply to ship-owning structures depending on how they are organised and managed.

Under English law, “force majeure” is not a free-standing doctrine: it applies only if the contract contains a force majeure clause and the clause is construed as covering the event and the relevant non-performance. The clause will typically require that performance is prevented or hindered beyond the party’s reasonable control, and may impose notice and mitigation obligations.

In the absence of a force majeure clause, relief may arise only through the doctrine of frustration, which is applied narrowly. Frustration requires a supervening event which, without fault of either party, renders performance impossible or transforms the obligation into something radically different from that undertaken. Delays, increased cost, or a change in market conditions are rarely sufficient; many shipping disruptions are dealt with contractually through war risk, safe port, deviation and laytime/demurrage provisions rather than frustration.

The UK enforces the IMO 2020 sulphur limits through its implementation of MARPOL Annex VI, principally via the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (as amended) and associated enforcement powers.

The global sulphur limit for fuel oil used on board ships outside designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs) is 0.50% m/m. Within the North Sea and English Channel Sulphur ECA, the stricter 0.10% limit applies. Enforcement is primarily undertaken by the MCA through inspections (including under port state control), detentions and, where appropriate, prosecution. Publicly reported enforcement tends to take the form of deficiency action and detention, with criminal proceedings being less common and fact-specific.

The UK has an autonomous sanctions framework implemented through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and country-specific regulations (including, for Russia, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019). Enforcement is carried out by a range of authorities, including the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation (OTSI), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the National Crime Agency (NCA), with licensing and exemptions available in defined circumstances.

The war in Ukraine has led to extensive UK sanctions affecting shipping and trade, including asset freezes, trade restrictions and targeted measures relating to Russian oil, maritime services and the oil price cap. OFSI has issued sector-specific guidance on the maritime services ban and oil price cap, and has taken enforcement action in the shipping sector (for example, a published penalty against a UK-registered shipping company for a Russia sanctions breach). Lawful trade that would otherwise be prohibited can in some cases proceed under a specific licence or general licence (where available), subject to strict conditions and reporting requirements.

International conflicts and related security risks can have material legal and commercial implications for shipping contracts and disputes in this jurisdiction. In practice, parties frequently rely on express contractual machinery rather than frustration, including war risk clauses (eg, CONWARTIME/VOYWAR), safe port/safe berth warranties, sanctions clauses, deviation liberties and off-hire/laytime provisions.

From an insurance perspective, war risks, kidnap and ransom, and increased premiums/exclusions can materially affect voyage economics and operational decisions, and disputes may arise concerning cover, constructive total loss and the reasonableness of rerouting. Conflict-driven disruption (including Red Sea/Suez issues) also commonly gives rise to claims for delay, cargo deterioration, extra expenses and general average, with outcomes turning on the particular contract wording and causation evidence.

Two further themes are increasingly important in the UK shipping market. First, environmental and decarbonisation regulation is driving contractual and disputes activity, including compliance with IMO carbon-intensity measures, fuel quality rules and (where relevant) emissions trading/greenhouse gas reporting regimes impacting voyages and charterparty performance.

Secondly, sanctions and enhanced compliance expectations continue to reshape shipping due diligence, payments and enforcement strategy, particularly in relation to beneficial ownership transparency, use of flags/class, and the risk allocation in charterparty and trade documentation. These issues frequently intersect with security (arrest/freezing), insurance response and the practicalities of enforcing judgments and arbitral awards.