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

Fecha: 05-Nov-2025

The judge’s findings

The judge’s findings

31.

On the basis of these facts the Deputy Judge made the following important findings:

(1)

Maître Zabaldano transferred some €27 million of the proceeds of sale of the villas owned by Cresta Overseas to UP Shipping’s bank account on Mr Chang’s instruction, and those proceeds were thereafter further dissipated upon UP Shipping’s receiving them.

(2)

Mr Su was subject to the freezing order and owed the judgment debt at the time of the transfer.

(3)

Mr Su was the beneficial owner of these funds, which therefore fell within the scope of the freezing order.

(4)

The transfer of these funds to UP Shipping was thus a breach of the freezing order.

(5)

If the funds had remained in Monaco, Lakatamia would have been able to enforce the liability judgments against them once those judgments were recognised in Monaco on 6^th July 2017.

32.

The Deputy Judge found also that it was more likely than not that, at the time when Maître Zabaldano ordered the transfer of the proceeds of sale of the villas to UP Shipping, he knew that Mr Su was bound by the freezing order and that the judgment debt had not been discharged; and that he knew also of Mr Su’s ultimate beneficial ownership of Cresta Overseas. The Deputy Judge gave reasons for making these findings which it is unnecessary to set out, but which fully justify the findings which he made. Having done so, he said that in consequence of these findings, he was satisfied that Maître Zabaldano knew that the transfer of the proceeds would place Mr Su in breach of the freezing order and would hinder Lakatamia’s ability to enforce the liability judgments.

33.

As the Deputy Judge recognised, the finding that Maître Zabaldano knew that Mr Su was the ultimate beneficial owner of Cresta Overseas meant that Maître Zabaldano had given false evidence on the central issue in the case in his witness statement challenging the jurisdiction of the English court. It is therefore somewhat surprising that the Deputy Judge did not regard this lie as undermining what he described as the overall thrust of Maître Zabaldano’s evidence (which had not, of course, been tested by cross-examination) that he genuinely believed that he was entitled, and obliged, to transfer the sale proceeds to UP Shipping. However, for reasons which I shall explain, it is unnecessary to pursue Lakatamia’s challenge to this finding as to Maître Zabaldano’s belief.

Unlawful means conspiracy

34.

I deal first with Lakatamia’s claim for damages for unlawful means conspiracy.