In a rare example of the Court of Appeal overturning factual findings made by a trial Judge, in Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Su [2025] EWCA Civ 1389, the Court of Appeal did just that, as well as restoring orthodoxy regarding worldwide freezing orders, thus protecting this valuable tool to ensure that English judgments do not go unsatisfied.
Previously, in a number of cases, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Commercial Court had all held that the so-called Babanaft proviso – a standard provision in worldwide freezing orders – does not afford those outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court with a defence to a claim in tort if they unlawfully conspire to dissipate frozen assets in breach of the order of the English court. But at first instance, a deputy Judge, Simon Colton KC, had held otherwise. His “erroneous” analysis of the law was described by Males L.J. — with whom Sir Julian Flaux C. and Falk L.J. agreed — as “untenable” and “contrary to binding Supreme Court authority”. His findings of fact, which were characterised by the appellant as “perverse”, were overturned despite the high bar to the Court of Appeal revisiting factual findings.
In consequence, judgment was entered in the appellant’s favour against the defendants for more than US$26 million.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is available here.
Lakatamia was represented by SJ Phillips KC and James Goudkamp. They were instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP (Alexander Bramwell and Conor O’Brien).
