Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 935 (Comm) (15 April 2021)

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Su & Ors [2021] EWHC 935 (Comm) (15 April 2021)

There has been no material change of circumstance justifying discharge or variation of the freezing, disclosure, or search orders, as the bankruptcy was known and does not affect the orders' validity. The only arguable change is the agreed adjournment of the examination as to assets, which justifies continuing the passport/jurisdiction orders until the end of July to ensure Mr. Su's attendance for possible future examination and to allow the Trustee and Claimants to consider asset recovery. The Claimants are permitted to use the 38,000 documents for these proceedings and possible third-party or bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Su's legal representatives must disclose the source of funds for...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 935 (Comm)
Parties
Claimants: Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited and Others; Defendants: Nobu Su and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Variation/discharge of Orders
Outcome
Application to discharge or vary freezing, disclosure, search, and passport/jurisdiction orders refused except that the passport/jurisdiction orders are continued until 31 July 2021.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Bankruptcy, Asset Disclosure, Jurisdiction Orders, Legal Representation Funding
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Freezing Orders Bankruptcy Asset Disclosure Jurisdiction Orders Legal Representation Funding

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited and Others

Claimants

Nobu Su and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Variation/discharge of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there has been a change of circumstance justifying variation or discharge of existing freezing, disclosure, search, and passport/jurisdiction orders against Mr. Su
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Su's bankruptcy constitutes a change of circumstance for the purposes of the orders
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants may use documents obtained under a search order for other proceedings or against third parties

Ratio Decidendi

There has been no material change of circumstance justifying discharge or variation of the freezing, disclosure, or search orders, as the bankruptcy was known and does not affect the orders' validity. The only arguable change is the agreed adjournment of the examination as to assets, which justifies continuing the passport/jurisdiction orders until the end of July to ensure Mr. Su's attendance for possible future examination and to allow the Trustee and Claimants to consider asset recovery. The Claimants are permitted to use the 38,000 documents for these proceedings and possible third-party or bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Su's legal representatives must disclose the source of funds for...

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or vary freezing, disclosure, search, and passport/jurisdiction orders refused except that the passport/jurisdiction orders are continued until 31 July 2021.

Orders

  • All existing freezing, disclosure, and search orders remain in place.
  • Passport/jurisdiction orders continued until 31 July 2021, with liberty to apply for further extension or variation.