AMNS Middle East FZE v LIQS Pte Ltd
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Judge | Sean O'Sullivan KC |
| Neutral Citation | [2025] EWHC 150 (Comm) |
| Date | 28 January 2025 |
| Year | 2025 |
| Counsel | Sudhanshu Swaroop Kc,Rishab Gupta |
Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 150 (Comm)
Case No: CL-2021-000175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 28 January 2025
Before:
Sean O'Sullivan KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
AMNS MIDDLE EAST FZE Claimant
- and -
LIQS PTE LTD Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sudhanshu Swaroop KC and Rishab Gupta (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the
Claimant
The Defendant was not represented and did not appear.
Hearing dates: 12-13 November 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on [date] by circulation to the parties
or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
AMNSME v. LIQS
Sean O'Sullivan KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge):
1. This is a strange case in a number of respects. It concerns a claim by AMNS Middle
East FZE (“C”) for repayment of US$52,803,513.90, on grounds of unjust
enrichment. C contends that (a) it paid this money to or for the benefit of LIQS Pte
Ltd. (“D”) in anticipation of and/or pursuant to a “Contract for Purchase of Steel
Products”, which envisaged steel or services being provided to C by D, but (b) it
never actually received any steel or services.
2. The background to these payments is controversial and, even on C’s own case,
somewhat shadowy and mysterious. A puzzling transaction is rendered opaque by
the fact that C itself has only limited information about what happened back in 2014-
2016, having been subject to a corporate restructuring since those events. The
mysteries have deepened further as a result of D’s decision to stop participating in the
current proceedings.
3. I will deal first with D’s non-attendance at the trial and the procedural consequences
of that non-attendance, before turning to the substantive issues.
Non attendance
Chronology
4. The claim was commenced in March 2021.
5. D was initially represented by leading counsel and Clyde & Co, and participated fully
in the proceedings until August 2024, filing a Defence and Counterclaim settled by
specialist leading counsel (and indeed an Amended Defence and Counterclaim) and 4
witness statements.
6. I understand that the trial was fixed for the availability of D’s Counsel in the usual
way. D’s PMIS (filed on 30 July 2024 and revised on 6 August 2024) indicated that
D would be ready for the trial in November 2024, with Clyde & Co acting as D’s
solicitors.
7. However, on 12 August 2024, C was served with an order of Mrs Justice Dias,
permitting Clyde & Co to cease acting as D’s solicitors, and providing an alternative
email address for serving D.
8. On 4 October 2024, on the date of the PTR, a Mr Howard (said to be “ Legal Counsel
For and on behalf of [D] ”) wrote to the Court, stating: “[D] will take no further part in
these proceedings and nor will they be represented in the High Court trial currently due to
commence on 12 November 2024 or at the hearing on 4 October 2024”.
9. At the PTR, because of uncertainty as to Mr Howard’s authority to communicate on
behalf of D, I ordered that D should provide a letter signed by Mr Sanjeev Gupta,
confirming its position. That was on the basis that Mr Gupta was known to be a
director, and the principal, of D.
10. On 9 October 2024, Mr Howard sent C’s solicitors a letter from Mr Gupta, stating that
“[D] will no longer be able to take part in nor will it be represented at the above captioned
proceedings (the Proceedings), as it cannot afford continued appropriate legal
representation”. It might be noted that the letter added that D “is able and more than
willing to put forward its witnesses to be cross examined by [C]”.
11. I made some further orders at a hearing on 23 October 2024 which was not attended
by D. These included orders for disclosure, in particular requiring D to search for and
AMNSME v. LIQS
disclose “ledgers, management accounts, annual financial statements and audit reports…
prepared between 2014 and 2019 (inclusive) ”, “Any other documents which refer to (i) the
Balance Confirmation provided to the Claimant by the Defendant on 25 April 2017; or (ii)
the sum referred to in the Balance Confirmation provided to the Claimant by the Defendant
on 25 April 2017” and “copies of its annual financial statements and audit reports that were
prepared or reviewed by the Defendant's accountants or auditors between 2014 and 2019”.
12. To assist D’s understanding of the potential consequences of ignoring those orders, I
made express reference to the possibility that, if disclosure was not given as ordered,
the Court might draw inferences: “For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to the
Court's general powers of case management, if the Court finds that the Defendant has not
complied, without satisfactory explanation, with any part of paragraphs 5 to 9 of this order,
the Court may draw such inferences as it considers to be appropriate, which may include
inferences against the Defendant's case”.
13. There has not been any response at all from D to that order for disclosure.
14. I made an order for payment of the costs of the application for disclosure, which I
summarily assessed in the sum of £12,000. These costs have not been paid.
15. In the light of the comments which had been made about the cross-examination of
witnesses, I included a recital to the Order as follows: “AND UPON the Court indicating
that a witness, in respect of whom a witness statement has been filed and served, will only be
permitted to give oral evidence at the trial where that witness has been called by a party who
attends the trial through an appropriate representative in accordance with the Civil
Procedure Rules”.
16. Nothing further has been heard from D following on from that hearing on 23 October
2024. I was shown the covering messages by which the bundles and C’s skeleton for
this trial were sent to D at the email address provided by Clyde & Co. All of those
communications have simply been ignored by D.
17. I am in no doubt that D was fully aware of the trial date and made a deliberate
decision not to attend or be represented. Indeed, Mr Gupta, for D, made clear that that
was what D had decided in his letter of 9 October 2024. It was said that the decision
was made for financial reasons, but that assertion is not explained. If it matters, I do
not accept, in the absence of any evidence, that D is unable to attend for financial
reasons. Until August 2024, D was able to pay a top international law firm and
leading counsel to act for it. I would need a proper explanation as to what has
changed to mean that it cannot now afford to be represented at Court in any form.
Proceeding in the absence of D
18. CPR 39.3(1) provides:
(1) The court may proceed with a trial in the absence of a party but –
(a) if no party attends the trial, it may strike out the whole of the
proceedings;
(b) if the claimant does not attend, it may strike out his claim and any
defence to counterclaim; and
(c) if a defendant does not attend, it may strike out his defence or
counterclaim (or both).
19. It is clear that I have a discretion to proceed with the trial in the absence of D. In
“Williams v Hinton [2012] C.P Rep 3 (2011)”, Gross LJ emphasised (at [40]) the
competing policy considerations: “It is of course of the first importance that a party is
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
