Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su [2021] EWCA Civ 1355 (15 September 2021)

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su [2021] EWCA Civ 1355 (15 September 2021)

The sentencing judge did not err in principle or exceed the statutory maximum; no material mitigation justified a reduction from the maximum sentence given the extreme and persistent nature of the contempts. Credit for admissions and reporting restrictions was not mandatory and not warranted on the facts.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1355
Parties
Appellant/first Defendant and Respondent: Nobu Su (aka Su Hsin Chi aka Nobu Morimoto); Second Defendant: TMT Company Limited; Third Defendant: TMT Asia Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Taiwan Maritime Transportation Company Limited; Fifth Defendant: TMT Company Ltd, Panama S. A.; Sixth Defendant: TMT Company Ltd, Liberia; Seventh Defendant: Iron Monger I Co., Ltd; Respondent/first Claimant and Applicant: Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd; Second Claimant: Slagen Shipping Company Ltd; Third Claimant: Kition Shipping Company Ltd; Fourth Claimant: Polys Haji-Ionnou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sentencing for Contempt, Mitigation, Maximum Sentence, Admissions of Contempt, Suspended Sentences
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Sentencing for Contempt Mitigation Maximum Sentence Admissions of Contempt Suspended Sentences

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nobu Su (aka Su Hsin Chi aka Nobu Morimoto)

Appellant/first Defendant and Respondent

TMT Company Limited

Second Defendant

TMT Asia Ltd

Third Defendant

Taiwan Maritime Transportation Company Limited

Fourth Defendant

TMT Company Ltd, Panama S. A.

Fifth Defendant

TMT Company Ltd, Liberia

Sixth Defendant

Iron Monger I Co., Ltd

Seventh Defendant

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd

Respondent/first Claimant and Applicant

Slagen Shipping Company Ltd

Second Claimant

Kition Shipping Company Ltd

Third Claimant

Polys Haji-Ionnou

Fourth Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the sentencing judge err in principle by adopting a starting point above the statutory maximum before mitigation?
  2. 2 Did the judge fail to give adequate credit for mitigation, including admissions and reporting restrictions?
  3. 3 Was the sentence manifestly excessive or outside the range of reasonable decisions?

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in principle or exceed the statutory maximum; no material mitigation justified a reduction from the maximum sentence given the extreme and persistent nature of the contempts. Credit for admissions and reporting restrictions was not mandatory and not warranted on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of two years' immediate custody upheld