Connect with us
DNV Decarbonization Insight Series August 2026 - What maritime professionals should know about AI Training

Legal

WFW on Strait of Hormuz: Great expectations of a narrow passage

Law firm WFW provides an overview of the legal and commercial issues likely to arise associated with any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, from contractual considerations to force majeure.

Admin

Published

5 months ago

on

RESIZED Chris Pagan

International law firm Watson Farley & Williams (WFW) on Wednesday (4 March) published an article written by WFW Athens Partner Natalie Jackson and London Associate Iliana Mastoraki who provide an overview of the legal and commercial issues likely to arise associated with any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, from contractual considerations to force majeure: 

Against a background of escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, international law does not permit Iran to obstruct transit passage through an international strait such as the Strait of Hormuz (the “Strait”). Yet, the mere declaration of closure (let alone threats issued by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”)) has unsettled markets and disrupted shipping routes. 

What was long-regarded as a dependable conduit of global trade has become a narrow passage burdened with immense consequences for the global shipping world which, once again, draws attention to the significant risks and disruption associated with a full closure of the Strait.

This article serves as a reminder to stakeholders of the legal and commercial issues likely to arise, as previously set out in detail in our WFW July 2025 article series covering contractual issues, force majeure and repudiation of contract, frustration and insurance implications.

Current state of affairs – is the Strait of Hormuz closed?

Whilst the Strait has not been legally closed, the IRGC has reportedly sent warnings via VHF that the Strait is shut down. The latest announcement (3 March) appears to be a comment from senior IRGC official Ebrahim Jabari stating: “The strait is closed. If anyone tries to pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guard and the regular navy will set those ships ablaze.” In the last 24 hours, at least three vessels have been confirmed to have been hit and/or attacked in the region. Despite no formal NAVAREA or IMO Safety Information, warnings or an imposition of an exclusion zone, the commercial intake, in practice, is that more and more vessels refrain from transiting the Strait. The Joint Maritime Information Centre (“JMIC”) has upgraded its regional risk assessment to ‘critical’ indicating that attacks are almost certain. Vessels have been advised by US Marad Maritime Alert 2026001A to avoid the region and proximity to US military vessels.

Relatedly, it is reported that Houthi officials have indicated that they will be targeting vessels in the Red Sea. With passages under threat, vessels will either be trapped or have to deviate through the Cape of Good Hope.

Summary of legal implications

Stakeholders will be looking out for daily updates from the relevant authorities and regulatory bodies including their insurers. In this respect, immediate charterparty concerns (discussed in detail here), are growing prevalent, including concerns around deviation and safe port considerations. The existence of any express liberty clause or an implied right to deviate for the safety of the vessel, crew and cargo and whether a deviation is ‘reasonable’ are all aspects which will require careful consideration. It should be noted however, that an unreasonable deviation may deprive the carrier of contractual rights and may result in P&I cover being lost. Parties are therefore advised to consult with their insurers along with all parties involved in the voyage before such decisions are made. Critically, owners should monitor the position carefully and record their reasoning to mitigate any exposure vis-à-vis allegations of unreasonable deviation.

Similarly, the question of whether parties may be able to successfully employ force majeure clauses in their charterparties or to rely on the legal doctrine of frustration, are all entirely pertinent.

Where BIMCO War Risks Clauses of 2025 for time and voyage charterparties have been incorporated, owners would, in principle, be entitled to rely on those provisions if transit through the Strait or operations in the surrounding region expose the vessel to war risks. In such circumstances, a refusal to comply with charterers’ employment orders may well be contractually justified. Read more on insurance-related considerations here.

The geopolitical situation is in flux and amidst the uncertainty, parties must be aware of their rights and obligations, the risks assumed or imposed and all the legal implications.

 

Photo credit: Chris Pagan on Unsplash
Published: 5 March, 2026

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Legal

HFW strengthens Singapore shipping practice with partner Peter Glover

Glover is an experienced shipping and admiralty lawyer and a qualified Master Mariner, having spent 11 years at sea on oil tankers prior to qualifying as a lawyer.
Admin

Published

1 day ago

on

August 4, 2026

By

HFW strengthens Singapore shipping practice with partner Peter Glover

Law firm HFW on Monday (3 August) said it has further expanded its global shipping practice and continued the growth of its Asia Pacific business with the appointment of Peter Glover as a Partner in Singapore.

Glover, who previously worked at HFW in Melbourne for three years, has rejoined the firm from Reed Smith. Glover is an experienced shipping and admiralty lawyer and a qualified Master Mariner, having spent 11 years at sea on oil tankers prior to qualifying as a lawyer.

His appointment follows a series of recent additions to HFW’s global shipping practice, including ship finance partner Simon Petch in London, shipping disputes Partner Elizabeth Sloane in Australia and Master Mariner Stephen Angove in Greece, as well as the promotion of Senior Master Mariner Paul Miller in London.

This appointment also continues the growth of HFW’s Asia Pacific business and in particular its Singapore office, after the recent hires of financial and trade sanctions Senior Associate Anastasia Magid, construction disputes Partner Simon Bellas, disputes and international arbitration Partner Shaun Leong and Senior Associate Theodore Ang and insurance disputes Legal Director Sinyee Ong.

HFW has added more than 40 new Partners globally since the beginning of FY25 and now has around 190 Partners and more than 700 lawyers across Europe, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and the Americas.

Adam Richardson, Singapore Office Head, HFW: “Shipping and maritime disputes remain central to our Singapore practice, reflecting the city’s role as a hub for international trade and complex cross‑border disputes. Peter’s appointment strengthens our wet and dry shipping litigation capability, and his ability to advise on matters arising at the intersection of shipping and international trade will complement our marketing-leading commodities practice in Singapore.

“Peter is the third partner we have added in Singapore since the beginning of FY26. We remain focused on attracting leading partners and teams as we continue to expand and enhance our client offering in Singapore.”

He regularly advises shipowners, charterers, commodity, energy and trading companies, banks and insurers on complex cross-border litigation and arbitration. 

This includes advising on shipping and admiralty matters, international trade and commodities disputes, marine insurance, enforcement of guarantees, civil fraud, and competition and commercial law. He also advises on legal risk management, commercial charterparties and commodities contracts, regulatory compliance, and insurance.

Glover also brings significant experience in high‑profile casualties and crisis situations, advising on the civil, regulatory and criminal aspects of accident response and emergency response management.

He is admitted to practise in England and Wales, Hong Kong and Queensland, Australia.

Peter Glover, Partner, HFW, said: “HFW’s market‑leading capabilities in shipping, trade and crisis management align closely with my practice. Returning to the firm as a partner in Singapore offers an excellent platform to support clients navigating an increasingly complex maritime and regulatory landscape, while leveraging HFW’s global strength across shipping, arbitration, energy and disputes to grow and broaden my practice.”

 

Photo credit: HFW
Published: 4 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Legal

Singapore: Yuantai Fuel Trading sues Wee Tiong for over USD 1.1 million in unreturned vessel deposit

Former bunker fuel supply company entered into a contract in March 2018 with Picon Marine to purchase the vessel “M.T Pacific Ocean” for USD 6.1 million.
Admin

Published

1 day ago

on

August 4, 2026

By

Singapore: Yuantai Fuel Trading sues Wee Tiong for over USD 1.1 million in unreturned vessel deposit

Yuantai Fuel Trading Pte Ltd, currently in compulsory liquidation, on 10 June 2026 filed a legal claim in the High Court of Singapore against Wee Tiong (S) Pte Ltd, seeking the recovery of USD 752,000 (exact: USD 752,288.81) over an alleged breach of contract for an outstanding vessel deposit.

Including accrued interest, the total claim stands at USD 1.17 million (exact: USD 1,170,562.06), according to court documents obtained by Manifold Times.

Background

Yuantai Fuel Trading, formerly a bunker fuel supply company, entered into a contract on March 2018 with Picon Marine Pte Ltd to purchase the vessel M.T Pacific Ocean for USD 6.1 million; Wee Tiong Director Tan Wee Beng was also the sole Director of Picon Marine.

As part of the agreement, Yuantai paid a deposit of USD 4.1 million into Wee Tiong’s bank account, which acted as Picon’s designated account.

However, the vessel was not delivered within the agreed timeframe, leading to a termination agreement in April 2018. Under this agreement, the full deposit was to be refunded to Yuantai without deduction.

Partial Refunds and Outstanding Amount

Wee Tiong made several partial refunds between 2018 and 2020, totalling approximately USD 3.35 million. Despite these payments, a balance of USD 752,288.81 remains outstanding.

Yuantai claims that interest on the unpaid sum, calculated at 5.33% per annum up to June 2026, amounts to an additional USD 418,273.24, bringing the total claim to USD 1,170,562.06.

Legal Claims

Yuantai asserts that Wee Tiong, acting as agent for Picon, breached the vessel contract and the subsequent termination agreement by failing to return the full deposit.

The company also alleges unjust enrichment, as the deposit was paid for a vessel that was never delivered.

On 3 June 2026, Yuantai issued a formal demand for payment, but no further funds have been received. The claim seeks the outstanding deposit, accrued interest, legal costs, and any further orders the court deems appropriate.

Related: Singapore: Liquidator issues notice to creditors of Yuantai Fuel Trading Pte Ltd

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 4 August 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Notice of dividend issued for defunct Singapore bunker supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum

First and final dividend for admitted preferential claims and unsecured claims of Inter-Pacific Petroleum is payable from 31 July, according to Government Gazette notice.
Admin

Published

2 days ago

on

August 3, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

A notice of dividend for defunct Singapore bunker supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd, currently in compulsory liquidation, was published on the Government Gazette on Friday (31 July). 

The following are the details of the notice:

Name of Company : Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte. Ltd. (In Compulsory Liquidation)
Unique Entity No./ Registration No. : 201115209N
Address of Registered Office : c/o 6 Shenton Way, OUE Downtown 2 #33-00, Singapore 068809
Court : The High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Number of Matter : Companies Winding Up No.: HC/CWU 37/2021
Amount per centum : 100 cents per Singapore dollar for admitted preferential claims; 0.21 cents per Singapore dollar for admitted unsecured claims
First and Final or Otherwise : First and final dividend for admitted preferential claims; First and final dividend for admitted unsecured claims
When payable : From 31 July 2026 onwards
Where payable : Dividends will be made by interbank transfer to the nominated bank account submitted by the creditor of the Company

Manifold Times previously reported the Appellate Division of Singapore’s High Court finding a former Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP) not liable to pay up to USD 146 million of the company’s total USD 156 million loss. 

The decision sets aside an earlier decision by the High Court that found Dr Goh Jin Hian responsible for the company’s financial loss. 

The Appellate Division of the High Court found that even though it agreed that Dr Goh had breached his duty of care as a director, IPP has failed to show that his breach caused loss to the company.

Lester Ho, Associate Director of multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC previously shared his timely key takeaways on the case of Dr Goh v Inter-Pacific Petroleum when the Appellate Division of the High Court in Singapore overturned the High Court’s finding that Mr Goh’s breach had caused IPP to incur the losses. 

Related: Intended dividend notice issued for defunct Singapore bunker supplier Inter-Pacific Petroleum
Related: Helmsman on Inter-Pacific Petroleum legal battle: When ignorance meets fraud
Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum wins appeal against former company
Related: Singapore: Ex-Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum appeals High Court decision
Related: Singapore: Former auditors of Inter-Pacific Petroleum undergo private oral examination at court
Related: Singapore: Civil trial between Inter-Pacific Petroleum and Dr Goh Jin Hian begins
Related: Former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum sued for USD 156 million
Related: Inter-Pacific Petroleum creditors authorised to fund lawsuit against former Director
Related: New Silkroutes under investigation over possible breach of Securities and Futures Act
Related: Judicial Managers considering to take former Singapore Director of Inter-Pacific Petroleum to court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group receives winding up order from High Court
Related: Singapore: Inter-Pacific Group files for winding up application at High Court
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum Pte Ltd bunker supplier licence
Related: Co-heads of Trade and Commodities Finance for Asia-Pacific leave SocGen
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum to hold creditors’ meet
Related: NewOcean detains Singapore-flagged bunker tanker “Pacific Energy 28”
Related: SocGen lawsuit against NewOcean Petroleum dropped, party to counterclaim
Related: MPA revokes Inter-Pacific Petroleum bunker craft operator licence
Related: Magnets on MFMs: Trial starts for former bunker clerk of “Consort Justice
Related: First suspect charged over MFM tampering in landmark case
Related: With nearly $180 million of debt, IPP proposes interim judicial management
Related: Inter-Pacific Group, Inter-Pacific Petroleum under judicial management
Related: Magnets on MFMs: “Consort Justice” crew pleads ‘not guilty’ to tampering charge
Related: IPP responds to temporary suspension of bunker craft operator licence
Related: MPA temporarily suspends IPP bunker craft operator licence
Related: Singapore: Bunker Cargo officer, crew face charges over alleged MFM tampering

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer
Published: 3 August, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending