Force Majeure and Sanctions Articles Owen Fry Published: August 12, 2022 Contact author Download article pdf The recent flurry of financial measures imposed in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the issue of sanctions back into the spotlight. As ever the imposition of sanctions has generated considerable uncertainty as firms assess their commercial relationships and navigate the changing landscape, wary of setting a foot wrong and the financial and reputational harm that might follow from doing business with a sanctioned company.  One way of managing the risk is to exit contracts already in place, either by way of an express right of termination or in reliance on force majeure provisions. However, force majeure clauses often impose obligations on an affected party to take steps to avoid the consequences of the event that has given rise to the force majeure. Formulations such as a requirement to “exercise reasonable endeavours” are common, but generally lead to questions as to how far a party must reasonably go to overcome the difficulty. This consideration may be particularly pertinent in circumstances where the counterparty is not itself sanctioned but is related to a sanctioned entity, and where business can still legally be done, but only by performing the contract in a slightly different way to that envisaged by its terms.  This is the question that was considered in a recent appeal against an arbitration award in MUR Shipping v RTI Ltd [2022] EWHC 467 (Comm). Background   The facts were as follows: The parties entered into a COA for the carriage of 280,000 mt per month of bauxite from Conakry in Guinea to Dneprobugsky in Ukraine. Freight was to be paid to owners’ bank account in the Netherlands in US dollars.  The COA included a force majeure clause providing in material part as follows: 36.1. Subject to the terms of this Clause 36, neither Owners nor Charterers shall be liable to the other for loss, damage, delay or failur