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

The claim against Mr Su only failed because the Deputy Judge concluded that neither Mr Chang nor Maître Zabaldano was liable in conspiracy and Mr Su could not be liable for conspiring on his own. As I have concluded that the claims against Mr Chang and Maître Zabaldano should have succeeded, it follows that Mr Su is also liable and it is unnecessary to consider whether, if Mr Chang had not been liable and the Babanaft proviso had given Maître Zabaldano a defence, Mr Su could nevertheless have been liable in conspiracy.

For the reasons which I have sought to explain, the claim in conspiracy should have succeeded against all three defendants and the appeal must be allowed.