High Court rules that England is the appropriate forum in cross-border conspiracy claim
Published on 11th Sep 2024
Claims can be brought in England against a Monaco lawyer who allegedly helped defendants breach a freezing order
In a July 2023 judgment, the English High Court held that England was the appropriate forum for conspiracy and related claims against a Monaco-based lawyer in connection with the alleged breach of a worldwide freezing order and evasion of an English judgment by judgement debtor.
Long-running litigation
The judgment in Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd v Su and others [2023] is one of the latest instalment in this long-running litigation in the English courts and relates to a worldwide freezing order granted in 2011 and judgments of around $50 million in favour of the claimant in 2014/15.
The judgment debtor had, since 2010, beneficially owned two Monaco villas through British Virgin Islands entities. The villas were sold in 2015 with the proceeds of the sale net of mortgages (amounting to €27 million) paid to a Monaco lawyer.
In 2021, the court found that the judgment debtor had unlawfully conspired with others (including his mother) to breach the 2011 freezing order by concealing and dissipating the proceeds from the sale of the Monaco villas from the claimant.
Further proceedings
In further proceedings, which were the subject of this July 2023 judgment, the claimant alleges that the Monaco lawyer who received the sale proceeds assisted the defendants with dissipating assets in breach of the 2011 freezing order.
The claimant brought claims against the Monaco lawyer, alleging that it is the victim of a further unlawful conspiracy between the judgment debtor and the Monaco lawyer to dissipate the sale proceeds and that the lawyer committed the tort of intentionally and knowingly inducing a violation of rights in a judgment (the "Marex tort").
Jurisdiction challenge
The Monaco lawyer sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the English courts, arguing that the claim did not fall within one of the "gateways" through which the English court can, under its jurisdictional rules, assert jurisdiction over foreign defendants.
The judge held that the claimant had a good arguable case that it suffered damage within the jurisdiction – as a result of a reduction in value of the judgment debts – and, therefore, fell within one of the gateways. In addition, the judge also held the claims against the Monaco lawyer fell within the "necessary or proper party" gateway, which applies where there is another claim between the claimant and a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court and where the claimant wishes to pursue the claim against another defendant who is a necessary and proper party to that claim.
In a separate judgment following an uncontested trial, the court found that claims against the Monaco lawyer failed on the merits.
Osborne Clarke comment
This case is a salient reminder to third parties (including lawyers), who are outside of the jurisdiction of the English court, of the need to tread carefully when dealing with judgment debtors and their assets, when the debtors are seeking to evade orders and judgments of the English court.
The judgment is a clear reminder that the English courts take subversion of their judgments seriously and will, where appropriate, not hesitate to accept jurisdiction to determine claims of such wrongdoing.
