AMNS Middle East FZE v LIQS Pte Ltd

AMNS Middle East FZE v LIQS Pte Ltd

The Claimant is entitled to restitution of US$52,803,513.90 because the payments were made as advances under the TAA for steel or services that were never supplied, the basis for the advances failed, and the Defendant's arguments of sham, collateral agreement, change of position, and limitation failed on the evidence and law.

Parties
Claimant: AMNS Middle East FZE; Defendant: LIQS PTE LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (unjust Enrichment) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Absent at Trial, Counterclaim Struck Out
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Failure of Basis, Sham Contracts, Entire Agreement Clauses, Change of Position Defence, Limitation of Actions
Commercial Law Contract Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Failure of Basis Sham Contracts Entire Agreement Clauses Change of Position Defence +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMNS Middle East FZE

Claimant

LIQS PTE LTD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (unjust Enrichment) / Final Judgment After Trial; Defendant Absent at Trial, Counterclaim Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to restitution of US$52,803,513.90 paid to or for the benefit of the Defendant under a contract for purchase of steel products (TAA) where no steel or services were supplied
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant's case that the TAA was a sham or that payments were made under a different agreement defeats the claim
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant can rely on a change of position defence

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is entitled to restitution of US$52,803,513.90 because the payments were made as advances under the TAA for steel or services that were never supplied, the basis for the advances failed, and the Defendant's arguments of sham, collateral agreement, change of position, and limitation failed on the evidence and law.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Restitution of US$52,803,513.90 to the Claimant
  • Interest at 1% over US Prime from 2 December 2023 to date of judgment