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

As I have noted (at [6(iv)]), the reference to Cape plc in the Park Proceedings appears to be an erroneous reference to CIHL. The matter is not completely clear, because the manner in which “Cape plc” is said to be liable is not clearly articulated in the Park Proceedings, and the naming of the parties in those (and other proceedings) is much less clear than it ought to be. Nevertheless, the First Defendant to these proceedings – Mr Protopapas, whose role I shall come to describe – has indicated that the reference to “Cape plc” is intended to refer to CIHL. Of course, Mr Protopapas cannot actually speak for the plaintiffs in either the Park Proceedings or any other proceedings originated against the Cape group in the US.

I proceed on the basis that Cape Jersey has been joined to these proceedings (as it was to the proceedings before Mann J) for the avoidance of doubt because of the uncertainties in the constitution of the South Carolina proceedings. Cape Jersey has never been served in those proceedings and (again for the avoidance of any doubt) has not submitted to South Carolina jurisdiction.

So far as CIHL is concerned, (i) it is contended that the Park Proceedings have been properly served on CIHL, (ii) which contention is disputed by CIHL, but (iii) in any event CIHL has never responded to the process and has never submitted to the jurisdiction: Mann J Judgment/[42].