Mercuria Energy Trading SA v Onex DMCC

Onex was not in breach of contract; 'typicals' regarding Organic Chloride content were not binding warranties, the cargo retained its commercial identity as SRFO, and the 100% requirement related to origin, not quality. Mercuria's claim fails.

Parties: Claimant: Mercuria Energy Trading SA; Defendant: Onex DMCC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 January 2026
Procedural Posture: Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment
Outcome: Claim dismissed
Legal Topics: Sale of Goods, Contract Interpretation, Quality and Description of Goods, Measure of Damages, Mitigation of Loss

Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Contract Interpretation Quality and Description of Goods Measure of Damages Mitigation of Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Mercuria Energy Trading SA

Claimant

Onex DMCC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Onex breached contractual obligations regarding Organic Chloride content in SRFO cargo
2 Whether the cargo lost its commercial identity as SRFO due to contamination
3 Whether Onex breached description or quality terms under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed