Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Hsin Chi SU (Also known as Nobu SU)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Michael Burton GBE |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 1929 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | CL-2011-001058 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
[2021] EWHC 1929 (Comm)
Sir Michael Burton GBE SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
CL-2011-001058
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane
London EC4
Mr S Phillips QC appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
Mr A Underwood QC and Mr A Tear appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This has been the hearing of a contempt application by the Claimant, Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd, against Mr Su, against whom they have an unpaid judgment handed down by Cooke J in November 2014 for over $57 million, which has now increased to well over $70 million, of which nothing has been paid by the Defendant, who has disobeyed numerous orders of the court and acted in flagrant breach of them.
In respect of 15 contempts, he was sentenced by me on 29 March 2019 to 21 months' imprisonment, of which he served half by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and, in respect of a further five contempts, he was sentenced by me on 11 February 2020 to a further four months, of which he again served half.
He has now committed and admitted 20 further contempts, all in pursuance of a continuous disobedience of court orders. Insofar as necessary I refer to my judgment [2019] EWHC 898 (Comm) (“the 2019 Judgment”) and [2020] EWHC 314 (Comm).
Mr Su vigorously but hopelessly denied the first 15 contempts and did not admit the second set of five, but on this occasion he has very recently admitted all the contempts, and Mr Underwood QC and Mr Tear have appeared before me on his behalf.
I have read and carefully considered the Defendant's Statement of Mitigation, which, apart from the fact that he thereby admits the 20 contempts, adds little. He relies on having been in prison for some part of the time, although a number of the contempts were prior to his being in custody (contempts 1 to 3, 11 to 17, 18, a dissipation effected the very day before his first committal and 19); and some post-dated his custody, (e.g.contempt 10).
In any event (i) he had the opportunity to respond to the orders while in custody and in part did so, although wholly inadequately: (ii) he has remained determinedly non-compliant during the 15 months since his release.
I turn to deal briefly with the 20 contempts, which were described by Mr Phillips QC for the Claimant as simply specimens of the Defendant's non-compliance with, and contravention of, court orders.
Counts 1 to 4 involve continued non-disclosure, in breach of three court orders, and in affidavits, including one purportedly served to purge his contempt, of his interest in a Japanese property, worth at least $460,000. He gives no substantive answer to this.
Contempts 5 to 6 relate to Mr Su's failure to disclose documents in breach of the order of Waksman J of 30 January 2020. Up Shipping and Blue Diamond, to which the disclosure order was directed, were the recipients of the €27 million proceeds of the properties in Monaco paid away by Mr Su, in breach of the original freezing order and which, if only it could have been located, could go far towards paying off the judgment debt. The only answer Mr Su gives is that he supplied some few documents relating to Up Shipping to Baker McKenzie, acting for his mother, in February 2019, but, insofar as relevant at all, that was 11 months before the Waksman order.
Contempt 7 was failure to disclose what were defined as the Schedule A documents, which had been the subject of earlier contravened orders of the court, the Popplewell order dated 29 January 2018, and the Bryan order, 16 January 2019. A new order in that regard was made by Teare J on 11 March 2020. No answer has been put forward at all in relation to this failure.
Contempts 8 and 9 relate to the failure to provide access to emails and social media and provide password details, in contravention of the order of Foxton J of 27 March 2019. There was no substantive answer to this, and a continued defiance.
Contempt 10 relates to the failure to comply with the search order made by Andrew Baker J on 27 June 2019. No substantive answer to this. The Claimants submit that there was possibly inadequate or poor legal advice to him, but Mr Su himself does not so suggest.
Contempts 11 and 12 relate to the failure to disclose his interest in Ocean Net Company Ltd, in breach of the Popplewell order and the Bryan order. This now admitted contempt is of some significance because it was dishonestly denied by Mr Su before me in March 2019, when charged with a contempt in relation to his non-disclosure of such interest, as I set out in paragraph 42 of the 2019 Judgment. I said:
“ I cannot find the contempt pleaded to be proved, namely that Mr Su has a beneficial interest in Ocean Net...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nobu SU (aka SU Hsin Chi aka Nobu Morimoto) v Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd
...BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES COMMERCIAL COURT (QBD) SIR MICHAEL BURTON GBE (sitting as a High Court Judge) [2021] EWHC 1929 (Comm) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Carr Case No: A4/2021/1187 Between: (1) Nobu SU (aka ......
-
Lakatamia v Su
...applications by Lakatamia. The other two judgments were given on 11 February 2020 ( [2020] EWHC 314 (Comm)) and 7 July 2021 ( [2021] EWHC 1929 (Comm)). Those judgments resulted in the imposition of prison sentences of 21 months, 4 months and 2 years 12 Lakatamia originally also sought a th......