BL-2025-000785 - [2025] EWHC 2470 (Ch)

Fecha: 30-Sep-2025

Conclusions

U.The injunctions at paragraph 6, 7 and 8 of the draft order

101.

I would be prepared to make the order at paragraph 6 of the draft order, save for the prudential considerations that I raised with the Parties during the course of the hearing, and which they accepted. Paragraph 6 seeks to enjoin CIHL, preventing it from taking any step in the proceedings in the Third Party Claim.

102.

To be clear, I consider that I have the jurisdiction to make an order of this sort, but it seems to me that the draft order at paragraph 6 should not be made, for pragmatic reasons. Mr Protopapas has shown a disregard of comity between nations, failing even to draw the implications of the anterior Cape litigation (specifically Adams v. Cape, the Cape Scheme and the David Richard J Order) to the proper attention of the South Carolina courts. I have every expectation that Mr Protopapas will continue in this conduct, and there is every risk that he will cause CIHL to take steps in the proceedings in South Carolina. Were that to occur, there would be a potential for arguing that CIHL was in breach of the very order that I am being invited to make by the Claimants. The capacity for mischief is considerable. Whilst I have every sympathy for the parties before me, this is an order I am not prepared to make, but for this reason only.

103.

Paragraphs 7 and 8 seek to enjoin Mr Protopapas from taking steps in the South Carolina proceedings. The effect of these orders is (at least indirectly) to inform the courts in South Carolina as to what is now required of Mr Protopapas. Mr Protopapas is, after all, the beneficiary of the Receivership Order, and there is obviously an expectation in the South Carolina courts that he act pursuant to that receivership. This is, therefore, a highly unusual form of anti-suit injunction because it is maintained not against an ordinary litigant but against a receiver appointed by a foreign court. Nevertheless, it is my conclusion that these orders should be made:

Mr Protopapas is properly before this court – although he has chosen not to exercise his right to be heard. Notwithstanding his choice in this regard, this court has personal jurisdiction over him.

ii)

I do not need to rehearse the reasons why an anti-suit injunction is appropriate in this case, because those reasons are exactly the same as the remedy of the declarations at paragraphs 1-3 of the draft order. I refer to my earlier consideration.

iii)

Whereas the declarations regarding the Settlement Agreement extinguish the subject-matter of the Third Party Claim, the injunctions at paragraphs 7 and 8 merely personally restrain Mr Protopapas from continuing with a claim that actually has no substance, because it has been extinguished by the Settlement Agreement.

That is why these orders are less aggressive than the orders I have already stated I am prepared to make. I have considered whether – pragmatically – it is pointful to make these orders in support of the other orders I am prepared to make. It seems to me that these orders do appropriately reinforce each other, and so I conclude that these orders too ought to be made along the lines of those articulated in the draft order at [58].

iv)

Mr Protopapas is properly before this court – although he has not chosen to exercise his right to be heard. Notwithstanding his choice in this regard, this court has personal jurisdiction over him.

I do not need to rehearse the reasons why an anti-suit injunction is appropriate in this case, because those reasons are exactly the same as the somewhat more aggressive remedy of the declarations at paragraphs 1-3 of the draft order. I refer to my earlier consideration.

vi)

vii)

V.Disposition

104.

For the reasons, I have given, I am going to make an order along the lines of the draft order, except for paragraph 6 of the draft.