Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Chang Tai-Chou & Ors

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Chang Tai-Chou & Ors

The claims against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano fail because the Claimant did not prove they had the requisite knowledge of the unlawfulness or intention to injure for unlawful means conspiracy, and because the Babanaft proviso precludes tortious liability for persons outside the jurisdiction merely assisting breach of a freezing order. The Marex tort claim against Maître Zabaldano fails because he honestly believed he was entitled and obliged to act as he did, negating the necessary intention, and in any event would be justified by his professional duty to his client in the absence of the English judgment being registered in Monaco. The claim against Mr Su fails as there was no...

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
07 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Marex Tort) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
All claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Freezing Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Marex Tort (inducing Breach of Judgment), Jurisdiction and Service Out, Babanaft Proviso, Justification Defence, Professional Secrecy
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Tort Law Private International Law Unlawful Means Conspiracy Freezing Orders Enforcement of Judgments Marex Tort (inducing Breach of Judgment) +4 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 Claim (breach of Contract, Conspiracy, Marex Tort) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (Chang and Zabaldano) are liable for unlawful means conspiracy in assisting breach of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable under the Marex tort for inducing breach of judgment
  3. 3 Whether the Babanaft proviso precludes tortious liability for persons outside the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano fail because the Claimant did not prove they had the requisite knowledge of the unlawfulness or intention to injure for unlawful means conspiracy, and because the Babanaft proviso precludes tortious liability for persons outside the jurisdiction merely assisting breach of a freezing order. The Marex tort claim against Maître Zabaldano fails because he honestly believed he was entitled and obliged to act as he did, negating the necessary intention, and in any event would be justified by his professional duty to his client in the absence of the English judgment being registered in Monaco. The claim against Mr Su fails as there was no...

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed.