Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu SU & Ors [2021] EWHC 2696 (Comm) (25 January 2021)

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Nobu SU & Ors [2021] EWHC 2696 (Comm) (25 January 2021)

The amendments to the Particulars of Claim are allowed because they are not so late as to jeopardise the trial date, are inferentially consistent with the existing case, and any additional disclosure or evidence required can be accommodated before trial. The application for specific disclosure is refused as Mrs Morimoto credibly asserts she has no further custodians or documents under her control, and any challenge to this should be addressed at trial, not by interlocutory order.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2696 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd; Defendant: Nobu Su; Defendant: Toshiko Morimoto; Defendant: Portview Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Cresta Overseas Ltd; Defendant: UP Shipping Corporation; Defendant: Blue Diamond Sea Transport LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications (amendment of Particulars of Claim and Specific Disclosure)
Outcome
Amendment application allowed; specific disclosure application refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Specific Disclosure, Freezing Orders, Conspiracy, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Amendment of Pleadings Specific Disclosure Freezing Orders Conspiracy Enforcement of Judgments

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd

Claimant

Nobu Su

Defendant

Toshiko Morimoto

Defendant

Portview Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Cresta Overseas Ltd

Defendant

UP Shipping Corporation

Defendant

Blue Diamond Sea Transport LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Interlocutory Applications (amendment of Particulars of Claim and Specific Disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit re-re-amendment of Particulars of Claim to add further allegations of conspiracy and knowledge against Mrs Morimoto
  2. 2 Whether to order specific disclosure against Mrs Morimoto

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments to the Particulars of Claim are allowed because they are not so late as to jeopardise the trial date, are inferentially consistent with the existing case, and any additional disclosure or evidence required can be accommodated before trial. The application for specific disclosure is refused as Mrs Morimoto credibly asserts she has no further custodians or documents under her control, and any challenge to this should be addressed at trial, not by interlocutory order.

Court Disposition

Amendment application allowed; specific disclosure application refused.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend Particulars of Claim as proposed, subject to minor refinement regarding the aeroplane conspiracy allegation.
  • No order for specific disclosure against Mrs Morimoto, save for a requirement to clarify by witness statement the sources of documents referred to in her disclosure statement.