CA-2024-001802 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1389

The current proceedings were begun by the issue of a claim form dated 6^th July 2022 claiming that, as a result of the transfer of funds to UP Shipping, all three defendants were liable for unlawful means conspiracy and that Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano were liable for intentionally and knowingly inducing a violation of rights in a judgment debt.

The claim form was served on Mr Su in this country and permission was granted to serve it on the remaining defendants out of the jurisdiction. Mr Su never formally acknowledged service, but he did represent himself remotely at various pre-trial hearings.

The claim form was served on Mr Chang in Taiwan but he has not filed an acknowledgment of service and has taken no part in these proceedings at any stage.

The claim form was served on Maître Zabaldano in Monaco, as a result of which he instructed English solicitors and counsel to acknowledge service and challenge the jurisdiction of the English court. For the purpose of this challenge Maître Zabaldano served a witness statement dated 22^nd December 2022 in which, among other things, he said that he did not know at the time of the transfer of funds to UP Shipping that Mr Su was the ultimate beneficial owner of Cresta Overseas; rather, he was informed that the ultimate beneficial owner was an individual who was not Mr Su.

That challenge was rejected by Mr Justice Bryan (Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2023] EWHC 1874 (Comm) [2024] 1 WLR 746). Maître Zabaldano sought permission to appeal to this court but permission was refused by Lord Justice Phillips on 11^th October 2023. Since then Maître Zabaldano has taken no further part in these proceedings.

Lakatamia did not seek a default judgment against Mr Chang or Maître Zabaldano and the trial of the action against all three defendants came before the judge on 13^th June 2024. As it accepted, Lakatamia therefore bore the burden to prove its case on the balance of probabilities. Mr Su represented himself remotely from an unspecified location outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, as he did on the hearing of this appeal. Lakatamia accepted also that it had a duty of fair presentation whereby it was obliged to draw to the attention of the court any points that might be to the benefit of the unrepresented defendants (cf. CMOC Sales & Marketing Ltd v Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 2230 (Comm), para 14, citing Braspetro Oil Services Co v FPSO Construction Inc [2007] EWHC 1359 (Comm), para 33).