Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Chang Tai-Chou & Ors
| Judge | SIMON COLTON KC |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Counsel | S.j. Phillips Kc,James Goudkamp |
| Date | 12 July 2024 |
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 1749 (Comm)
Case No: CL-2022-00351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 12th
July 2024
Before :
SIMON COLTON KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
LAKATAMIA SHIPPING COMPANY LTDClaimant
- and -
(1) NOBU SU / HSIN CHI SU
(aka SU HSIN CHI; aka NOBU
MORIMOTO)
(2) CHANG TAI-CHOU
(3) ARNAUD ZABALDANO
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
S.J. PHILLIPS KC and JAMES GOUDKAMP (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the
Claimant
The First Defendant in person
The Second and Third Defendants did not appear and were not represented
Hearing date: 13 June 2024
Further written submissions received: 5 July 2024
Draft judgment circulated: 8 July 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 12 July 2024 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Simon Colton KC
Approved Judgment
Lakatamia v Su
Mr Simon Colton KC:
Introduction
1.This is the latest instalment in the long-running saga arising out of a breach of contract
claim brought by Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd (Lakatamia or the Claimant) against the
First Defendant (Mr Su). Judgments were entered in that claim in November 2014 and
January 2015. In the 9½ years since, the judgment sum is largely unsatisfied. Indeed,
with interest and costs which have accrued in the meantime, I am told that, after some
recoveries, more than US$ 60 million is now owed.
2.The hearing before me was the largely undefended trial of a claim against Mr Su, the
Second Defendant (Mr Chang), and the Third Defendant (Maître Zabaldano) arising
out of Mr Su’s breach of a freezing order (the Freezing Order) which was intended to
prevent the dissipation of his assets prior to judgment. MrSu cannot dispute such
breach: Sir Michael Burton GBE previously committed Mr Su to 21 months’ custody
for numerous breachesof the freezingorder:see Lakatamia Shipping CoLtd v Su
[2019]EWHC 898 (Comm). Those breaches included failing to disclose Mr Su’s
interests in two Monaco properties – Villa Rignon and Villa Royan (theVillas) – and
the dissipation of the proceeds of sale of the Villas, which were held for the company
which owned them, Cresta Overseas Ltd (Cresta Overseas). The proceeds (the Cresta
Overseas Monies) were, as the evidence in the present case demonstrates, paid away to
a company named UP Shipping Corporation (UP Shipping). In the present trial, the
central issue is whether Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano have any liability arising out
of the events in question.
3.In previous proceedings, after a trial to which none of the current Defendants were
party, Bryan J decided that a number of individualsand companies had unlawfully
conspired with each other to breach the Freezing Order by concealing the Cresta
Overseas Monies from Lakatamia. The Claimant describes this conspiracy as the
‘Principal Conspiracy’. In the present proceedings, the Claimant alleges it has been
the victim of a further unlawful conspiracy, essentially parasitic on the Principal
Conspiracy, between Mr Su, Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano, to dissipate the Cresta
OverseasMonies and thereby injure Lakatamia (theSubsidiary Conspiracy). The
Claimant brings claims against all three Defendants for unlawful means conspiracy; and
against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano for the so-called Marextort (named after the
Page 2
Simon Colton KC
Approved Judgment
Lakatamia v Su
decision of Knowles J inMarex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja [2017] EWHC 918 (Comm),
[2017] 4 WLR 105).
Preliminary matters: the conduct of the trial
4.The proceedings were served onthevariousdefendants in July2022.Noneof the
defendants ever served an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to
defend the case on the merits, but nonetheless Lakatimia did not seek default judgment.
Rather, as was its right, Lakatimia decided to pursue the claims to trial.
The position of Mr Su
5.Although Mr Su never formally acknowledged service, he did appear remotely,
representinghimself, at various pre-trial hearings, includingthe Case Management
Conference before Bright J in January 2024. On 26 April 2024, Cockerill J ordered that
unless Mr Su were to file a CPR-compliant defence by 13 May 2024, Mr Su would be
debarred from defending the proceedings. A document was filed, but on 23 May 2024
Foxton J decided that this did not comply with the requirements of the CPR, and struck
it out. Nonetheless, Foxton J decided that it would be open to Mr Su at trial to advance
a case that Maître Zabaldano believed that the Villas were not affected by the Freezing
Order, and that Mr Chang believed the Villas were family owned, save that Mr Su
would not bepermitted to adducewitnessoral evidence inrespectof such acase,
without the prior permission of the court. For the purpose of seeking such permission
Mr Su was to comply with the order for disclosure made at the CMC, and provide the
courtwith a copy of any witness statement he sought permission to adduce. Any
application for such permission was to be made on paper by 4pm on 4 June 2024.
6.On 4 June 2024, an application was made by Mr Su, accompanied by his third witness
statement, but Foxton J decided that Mr Su had not complied with the order for
disclosure, and so Foxton J would not give permission for Mr Su to adduce witness
evidence. Nonetheless, Foxton J decided it would be a matter for the trial judge to
decide the extent of Mr Su’s participation in the trial.
7.In the event, I decided at the outset of the trial that I would permit Mr Su to argue that
the evidence adduced by Lakatamia did not meet the burden of provingthat Maître
Zabaldano and Mr Chang had the necessary states of mind to be liable for the torts
alleged. In making this decision, I bore in mind the observations of Fancourt J in Byers
Page 3
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