Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1389 (05 November 2025)

Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1389 (05 November 2025)

The Babanaft proviso in a worldwide freezing order does not shield foreign defendants from civil liability for unlawful means conspiracy when they assist a party subject to the order in breaching it. All three defendants knowingly participated in the dissipation of funds in breach of the freezing order, satisfying the elements of unlawful means conspiracy. The Deputy Judge's factual findings regarding Mr Chang's knowledge were plainly wrong, and the legal conclusion regarding the Babanaft proviso was contrary to binding Supreme Court authority. Judgment must be entered for Lakatamia against all defendants.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1389
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Lakatamia Shipping Co. Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Nobu Su/Hsin Chi Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Morimoto); Respondent/defendant: Chang Tai-Chou; Respondent/defendant: Arnaud Zabaldano
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment entered for Lakatamia against all defendants.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Inducement of Breach of Judgment, Jurisdiction, Professional Obligations of Foreign Lawyers
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Unlawful Means Conspiracy Freezing Orders Enforcement of Judgments Inducement of Breach of Judgment Jurisdiction +1 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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatamia Shipping Co. Ltd

Appellant/claimant

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

Respondent/defendant

Chang Tai-Chou

Respondent/defendant

Arnaud Zabaldano

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were liable for unlawful means conspiracy in dissipating funds subject to a worldwide freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the Babanaft proviso in the freezing order provided a defence to foreign defendants for civil liability in conspiracy
  3. 3 Whether the Marex tort (inducement of breach of rights under a judgment) was established against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Babanaft proviso in a worldwide freezing order does not shield foreign defendants from civil liability for unlawful means conspiracy when they assist a party subject to the order in breaching it. All three defendants knowingly participated in the dissipation of funds in breach of the freezing order, satisfying the elements of unlawful means conspiracy. The Deputy Judge's factual findings regarding Mr Chang's knowledge were plainly wrong, and the legal conclusion regarding the Babanaft proviso was contrary to binding Supreme Court authority. Judgment must be entered for Lakatamia against all defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment entered for Lakatamia against all defendants.

Orders

  • Set aside paragraph 1 of the Deputy Judge's order.
  • Enter judgment for Lakatamia Shipping Co. Ltd against Nobu Su, Chang Tai-Chou, and Arnaud Zabaldano.