The 2026 Iran War – Emerging Issues and Legal Considerations

More than three months into the 2026 Iran War, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to disrupt global shipping and raise complex legal questions. This article examines briefly the main charterparty issues arising from the crisis and the disputes likely to emerge.

It is now over 100 days since the Iran War started earlier this year and led to the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz.  At the time of writing, transits through the Strait of Hormuz remain at an all-time low. However, the latest announcement on 14 June 2026 of a prospective agreement to end hostilities between the US and Iran sounds promising, albeit one accompanied by significant uncertainty. In public statements, the US President indicated that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen to commercial shipping and that the US would lift its naval blockade.

That said, the impact of the closure has led to an increasingly complex legal and operational picture: some 2,000 vessels, together with their crews, remain unable to leave the Arab Gulf, while several hundred vessels are waiting in or around the Gulf of Oman for a safe opportunity to transit. Some such vessels were attacked (including a Nordisk Member vessel that suffered significant hull damage). The question for owners, charterers, receivers, and insurers is not only when the Strait may reopen, but also what disputes may emerge.

Nordisk has been actively engaged since the beginning of the war, assisting Members in assessing their legal rights and obligations as events develop.   The early focus was on immediate questions of safety, war risk, contractual performance, and voyage orders.  More recently, the issues have widened into the practical and legal ramifications of prolonged interruption in anticipation of the reopening of one of the world’s most sensitive maritime chokepoints.

In this article, we thought it might be helpful to discuss some of these issues in a charterparty context.

Bunkers and Supplies
Vessels on both sides of the Strait face potential shortages of bunkers and other supplies. The disruption to the fuel supply chain has also caused global bunker supply shortages.  Popular bunkering ports in the Far East have been particularly affected, including Singapore, with long lead times being reported, particularly for replenishing very-low-sulphur fuel.  This raises a series of practical and contractual questions, such as what happens if a deviation from the voyage is required in order to obtain sufficient fuel or supplies?  Who bears the cost of any waiting time?

Under a time charter, the answer is perhaps straightforward.   As it is the charterer who gives employment orders and is typically obliged to provide and pay for fuel, any deviation required to obtain that fuel will therefore be pursuant to the charterer's orders, with the vessel remaining on hire.

The position will likely be different under a voyage charter, however, where the owner is under an express, if not implied, obligation to proceed without unnecessary deviation in the usual and customary course[1].  It is also the owner who is obligated to provide fuel for the voyage and who bears the cost thereof, which cost has already been factored into the freight and demurrage rate.  Any time spent in deviating and waiting for bunkers to be supplied under a voyage charter will therefore be at the owner’s time and cost.  While each case will turn on its facts, as well as the express terms of the charterparty, the owner may also be exposed to claims for delay.

Owners and charterers may also be at an increased risk of bunker quality issues.  Tight product supply and high prices create an environment in which blending fuel with cheaper product may be attractive, giving rise to potentially off-spec fuel. Bunkers recently supplied at Singapore were reportedly found to have been “cut” with Estonian shale oil[2], leading to sludging and clogging of fuel pumps and possible main engine damage.

Extra vigilance in vetting suppliers, as well as in carrying out testing well in advance of consuming any newly supplied fuel, is recommended.

Redelivery Issues
Vessels on time charter trapped in the Arab Gulf, or perhaps waiting to proceed into and discharge within the Arab Gulf, may be approaching the end of their charter period. Charterers must consider whether they can re-deliver in accordance with the charterparty — both at the right time and at the agreed geographical location — or whether they face choosing between two potential breaches: re-delivering outside the agreed geographical location but at the right time, or re-delivering late but at the right place.

An owner cannot refuse redelivery in the incorrect place, but they may have a claim against the charterer in damages.  Similarly, owners may also have a claim against charterers for any late redelivery.

Once the Strait reopens, which is hopefully imminent, the legitimacy of any final-voyage orders may also fall to be considered.

Condition of the Vessel on Redelivery
Under a time charter, the charterer is usually obliged to re-deliver the vessel in “like good order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted”.  Tangential issues, such as the condition of the vessel at the time of redelivery, may therefore also come into focus.

By way of example, prolonged idleness may give rise to hull fouling, in turn giving rise to considerations of which party bears the time and cost of cleaning the hull. In a time charter context, the condition of the hull is typically a maintenance obligation on the owner.  In The Pamphilos (2002), barnacle growth was found to be ordinary wear and tear as it was an “ordinary incident of trading in accordance with the charterers’ lawful orders”.

However, owners may try to make out an implied-indemnity-type argument, to the effect that the delays arising, and therefore any hull fouling, were a consequence of the owners’ complying with the charterers’ voyage orders.  As such, the owner should ideally be indemnified by the charterer for the consequences — including any hull fouling.  Questions such as whether the charterers’ orders were the effective cause of any such fouling fall to be considered, along with any express provisions in the charterparty allocating the cost, time and risk of hull fouling to the charterer.

In a voyage-charter context, a general right of indemnity will seldom be implied.  The owner has already agreed to perform a specific voyage, such that the risk of hull fouling and the consequences thereof will generally fall upon the owner.

Bunkering Disputes
With reports that global bunker prices for maritime fuels are up some 160% since the start of 2026[3], and with the impact of the US–Iran conflict and the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, it is unsurprising that questions are being asked about redelivery bunker obligations. The effective closure of the Strait also drove broader energy markets higher, with crude oil reportedly peaking at around USD 120 per barrel. While a recent framework agreement between the US and Iran to end hostilities has prompted some easing in prices, reports indicate that it may take several months for shipping volumes and fuel prices to normalise. Many time charters specify a contractual price for fuel supplied on delivery and at redelivery, and also require the vessel to be re-delivered with a specified quantity of fuel on board, or with the same quantity as on delivery.

Where the market price of fuel has risen significantly against the charterparty price, vessels may be tendered for redelivery with less fuel on board than agreed. The obligation to redeliver with a specific quantity of fuel will usually be an intermediate term, such that the owner cannot refuse redelivery in such circumstances, but they may have a claim in damages — typically calculated at the difference between the market rate at the place of redelivery (or nearest bunkering port thereto) and the charterparty price for any shortfall.

Congestion
Once the Strait reopens and is safe for passage, vessels may not be able to proceed immediately because of congestion, security restrictions or traffic management measures.  There may also be congestion at ports within the Persian Gulf.

In the time charter context, parties may need to consider whether any off-hire wording is engaged or whether the delay arising is expressly catered for in the charterparty.

In the voyage charter context, port congestion may be of particular concern. Regard should be paid to contractual provisions relating to where and when notice of readiness can be validly tendered to start the laytime clock ticking, along with the exceptions and exclusions to the running of laytime and/or time on demurrage.

As ever, Nordisk is available to assist and advise its Members on charterparty issues (as well as compliance issues) arising out of the Iran War.

[1] Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716, 725, per Tindal C.J.

[2] Tankers hit by issues after bunkering shale-blended fuel in Singapore amid Hormuz price surge: Lloyd's List

[3] Riviera - News Content Hub - Singapore lab says off-spec bunker fuel has 'possible' links to engine wear