Shipping law in the wartime: ship arrest, safety risks and disputes under charter parties
21 September, 2026
66
On September 4, 2026, the 9th South Ukrainian Legal Forum, organized by the Ukrainian Bar Association, took place in Odesa. One of its special sessions was a panel discussion on Shipping law, focusing on practical issues currently facing the shipping and trade sectors.
Interlegal partner Karyna Gorovaya participated in the discussion. Jointly with moderator Pavlo Lebediev (Partner at AGA Partners) and fellow panelists, such as Artem Volkov (Head of Maritime and Transport Law Practice at ANK Law Firm) and Oleksii Bobryk (Partner at Lex Marine Law Office), she discussed the issues of ship arrest and maritime claim security, war risks in shipping and disputes between shipowners and charterers.
Ship arrest and maritime claim security
One of kay topics of the discussion was the practice of ship arrests in Ukraine.
According to data presented by the delegates, Odesa Region Commercial Court has considered 27 applications for ship arrests in 2025 and 11 more in the first half 2026, total 38 cases over this period including 15 applications satisfied, 13 rejected, 8 returned to applicants and 2 left unconsidered.
Such figures show that ship arrest still remains a sought-after tool for maritime claim security, even amidst a full-scale war. Meantime, the procedure itself is becoming increasingly complex and substantive: courts are paying greater attention to nature and amount of the claim, an option to take alternative security measures and legal effects of ship arrest for a shipowner.
Special attention was drawn to shift in how courts apply countersecurity in ship arrest cases. For instance, in March 2026, Odesa Region Commercial Court ordered countersecurity amounting to 1.261 million USD in the case concerning arrest of the bulk carrier BOLD VOYAGER; the party initiating ship arrest was required to deposit such amount at the court’s account. Experts described this case as unprecedented in Ukrainian practice, noting that previously, national courts either failed to take reasonable countersecurity measures at all or set amounts that were disproportionately low as compared to maritime claim.
Karyna Gorovaya noted, ship arrest is not the only means of claim security; following arrest and fixing the vessel, Ukrainian courts need to examine and to develop the practice of substituting ship arrest with possible alternative security measures. such as guarantees from recognized P&I clubs. For a shipowner, such a guarantee can be far less burdensome than actual immobilization of the vessel or the need to deposit a substantial sum at the court’s account. However, it is crucial for the claimant to understand reliability of proposed security and whether it is enforceable indeed.
The use of P&I club guarantees by Ukrainian courts still requires appropriate regulatory clarification. Speakers believed that draft law amending the Merchant Shipping Code of Ukraine, which was recently submitted to the Supreme Council of Ukraine, could play a vital role in this regard. Among other changes, this 90-page document proposes fixing P&I club guarantees as a recognized method of maritime claim security.
Another issue highlighted at the panel discussion concerned correlation between the maritime claim amount and the value of security.
If a claimant artificially inflates the claim amount by including penalties, additional charges or other components, this directly affects the shipowner’s ability to substitute arrest with alternative security. In such instances, the court may determine the maritime claim amount directly within the relevant ruling, while the claimant’s assessment of the claim amount does not always align with the court’s opinion. Such approach potentially allows to distinguish the maritime claim itself from other claimed amounts and, therefore, to determine a more justified amount of security.
How war risks change approaches to arrest
The war in Ukraine has introduced an additional factor to standard issues surrounding ship arrests, namely physical safety of the vessel and her crew.
Following catastrophic deterioration of safety in the Black Sea, this issue has taken on particular practical significance. The delegates discussed instances where a vessel, either staying at the Ukrainian port or en route, faces heightened risk due to the very fact of ship arrest.
In such scenario, the arrest ceases to be merely a legal mechanism for claim security. The vessel may remain trapped in a high-risk zone, placing both the crew and the cargo in jeopardy. Therefore, the discussants noted that under current conditions, both courts and the parties involved should carefully consider an option to substitute ship arrest with alternative form of security.
Karyna Gorovaya highlighted the practical aspects of such issue: even after the parties reach an agreement and the court makes a decision on vessel release, additional bureaucratic hurdles may arise, effectively impeding the vessel to leave the port immediately.
Ukrainian legal practice already includes a precedent where a court lifted security measures, in particular, with regards to the fact that the vessel was under fire. It proves that both crew safety and physical condition of the vessel are increasingly becoming critical factors when resolving issues related to maritime claim security.
How war impacted performance of charter parties
One more crucial topic concerned disputes arising when a shipowner rejects carrying out an agreed voyage to the Ukrainian port due to worsening safety.
Karyna Gorovaya explained that such disputes do not always concern merely shipowner’s courage or crew’s willingness to call at the dangerous area; commercial factors play a vital role, such as insurance terms, war risk clauses in the charter party, the cost of war risk premiums and fluctuations in freight rates.
When shelling intensifies and danger levels at ports rise, like in July 2026, shipowners face a sharp increase in war risk insurance costs. The appropriate expenses can increase from 2% to 12%. Under such circumstances, the decision to carry out voyage becomes more than just a safety issue; the shipowner should assess whether freight revenue will cover insurance costs and additional risks.
Most charter parties contain war risk clauses that allow a shipowner either to reject call at a certain port or propose an alternative one in case of a threat. If costs skyrocket and the agreed freight rate fails to cover them, the shipowner may demand additional reimbursement also known as war bonus. In one of cases cited at the panel discussion, a shipowner was offered an additional payment amounting to 600,000 USD for the vessel to call at the port.
However, agreement between the shipowner and the charterer does not always resolve the issue. Delegates mentioned that in another instance the shipowner agreed to the terms, but the crew rejected carrying out such arrangement. These examples highlight the complexity of risk structure in shipping business. The final decision regarding a voyage depends not only on charter terms or the shipowner’s position; it is also influenced by insurance, freight rates, war risk clauses, safety and position of the crew being actually on board.
Changing geography of disputes
The delegates agreed that ship arrests and maritime disputes would remain a key area of activity for Shipping lawyers. However, the scope of such disputes is directly related to the level of shipping traffic to Ukrainian ports. Should the safety deteriorate further, some disputes might shift to other jurisdictions, in particular, those involving the Danube route and ports in Romania and Bulgaria.
Summing-up the discussion, speakers generally viewed Ukrainian case law regarding maritime disputes and ship arrests in a positive aspect. They noted that court rulings have become better reasoned, while judges increasingly referred to international conventions and analyzing the specific nature of maritime claims.
For shipping business, it means step-by-step emergence of a more predictable legal environment. However, the war introduces a factor that cannot be ignored: legal mechanisms should not create disproportionate risks both for the vessel and her crew. Search of a balance between creditor’s right to effective security, the shipowner’s interests, commercial terms of the voyage, and safety of people on board – this is the factor that could determine future development of shipping law practice in Ukraine.
