Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su & Ors [2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm) (12 July 2024)

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su & Ors [2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm) (12 July 2024)

The court found that Mr Su was liable for unlawful means conspiracy and breach of the freezing order, as previously determined and not open to dispute. However, the evidence did not establish that Mr Chang or Maître Zabaldano had the requisite knowledge or intention to be liable for unlawful means conspiracy or the Marex tort. The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano knew the facts rendering the means unlawful or intended to violate the claimant's rights under the judgment. No adverse inferences were drawn against the non-participating defendants. The claims against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano were dismissed.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd; First Defendant: Nobu Su / Hsin Chi Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Morimoto); Second Defendant: Chang Tai-Chou; Third Defendant: Arnaud Zabaldano
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Torts (unlawful Means Conspiracy and Marex Tort) / Final Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claims against the Second and Third Defendants (Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano) dismissed; Mr Su's liability for breach of the freezing order stands as previously determined.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Inducement of Breach of Judgment (marex Tort), Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Jurisdiction, Adverse Inferences, Evidence in Undefended Trials
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Enforcement of Judgments Unlawful Means Conspiracy Inducement of Breach of Judgment (marex Tort) Freezing Orders Asset Dissipation +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd

Claimant

Nobu Su / Hsin Chi Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Morimoto)

First Defendant

Chang Tai-Chou

Second Defendant

Arnaud Zabaldano

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Torts (unlawful Means Conspiracy and Marex Tort) / Final Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (Mr Su, Mr Chang, Maître Zabaldano) are liable for unlawful means conspiracy in dissipating assets in breach of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano are liable for the Marex tort (inducing breach of judgment)
  3. 3 Whether the evidence adduced by the claimant is sufficient to prove the necessary states of mind for liability

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Su was liable for unlawful means conspiracy and breach of the freezing order, as previously determined and not open to dispute. However, the evidence did not establish that Mr Chang or Maître Zabaldano had the requisite knowledge or intention to be liable for unlawful means conspiracy or the Marex tort. The claimant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano knew the facts rendering the means unlawful or intended to violate the claimant's rights under the judgment. No adverse inferences were drawn against the non-participating defendants. The claims against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims against the Second and Third Defendants (Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano) dismissed; Mr Su's liability for breach of the freezing order stands as previously determined.

Orders

  • Claim against Mr Chang dismissed.
  • Claim against Maître Zabaldano dismissed.