Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Su & Ors

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Su & Ors

The court has jurisdiction and it is just and convenient to continue the injunction and ancillary orders to secure compliance with disclosure obligations and facilitate enforcement of the judgment against Mr Su, including the appointment of an independent lawyer and the signing of mandates for third-party disclosure. However, the court lacks jurisdiction to impose a penal curfew or electronic monitoring as sought, as such measures require clear statutory authority and are not justified under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Parties
Claimant: Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited; Claimant: Slagen Shipping Co Ltd; Claimant: Kition Shipping Co Ltd; Claimant: Polys Haji-Ionnaou; Defendant: Nobu Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Moritomo); Defendant: TMT Co Limited; Defendant: TMT Asia Limited; Defendant: Taiwan Maritime Transportation Co Ltd; Defendant: TMT Company Limited Panama SA; Defendant: TMT Co Limited Liberia; Defendant: Iron Monger I Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement / Post Judgment Applications for Injunctive and Ancillary Relief
Outcome
Injunction continued and mandate order granted; conditions application for electronic monitoring refused; ancillary directions given.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Electronic Monitoring, Mandate Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Enforcement of Judgments Injunctions Asset Disclosure Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Electronic Monitoring +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited

Claimant

Slagen Shipping Co Ltd

Claimant

Kition Shipping Co Ltd

Claimant

Polys Haji-Ionnaou

Claimant

Nobu Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Moritomo)

Defendant

TMT Co Limited

Defendant

TMT Asia Limited

Defendant

Taiwan Maritime Transportation Co Ltd

Defendant

TMT Company Limited Panama SA

Defendant

TMT Co Limited Liberia

Defendant

Iron Monger I Co Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement / Post Judgment Applications for Injunctive and Ancillary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order disclosure and asset tracing measures post-judgment against a non-compliant judgment debtor
  2. 2 Whether the court can compel the signing of mandates for access to email/social media accounts
  3. 3 Whether further conditions (including electronic monitoring) can be imposed on a judgment debtor upon release from prison

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction and it is just and convenient to continue the injunction and ancillary orders to secure compliance with disclosure obligations and facilitate enforcement of the judgment against Mr Su, including the appointment of an independent lawyer and the signing of mandates for third-party disclosure. However, the court lacks jurisdiction to impose a penal curfew or electronic monitoring as sought, as such measures require clear statutory authority and are not justified under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued and mandate order granted; conditions application for electronic monitoring refused; ancillary directions given.

Orders

  • Continuation of the injunction in existing form to secure disclosure and asset identification.
  • Appointment of an independent lawyer to access and review Mr Su's email and social media accounts, with safeguards for privilege and relevance.