Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited and others (Respondents) v Nobu Su (Aka Su Hsin Chi; Aka Nobu Morimoto) (Appellant)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0019

Parties

Appellant(s)

Nobuyoshi Morimoto

Respondent(s)

Tai Chau Chang

Arnaud Zabaldano

Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd

Issue

Were the Court of Appeal correct to overturn the factual findings of the trial judge and the trial judge’s conclusion that the Supreme Court decision in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No 14) [2018] UKSC 19 (“Ablyazov”) was distinguishable on the facts?

Facts

In 2008, Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited (“Lakatamia”) entered into a contract with Mr Su, the appellant, concerning derivative instruments tied to the freight forward market. Under this contract, Mr Su was required to repurchase those derivative positions from Lakatamia a month after the initial transaction but, in breach of contract, failed to do so. This breach of contract has since led to long-running litigation concerning the parties. In 2011, a worldwide freezing order was made against Mr Su and various companies owned by him or his family. This freezing order still remains in force. Subsequently, in 2014 - 2015, the High Court entered judgments against Mr Su and his companies for sums over US$47.6 million in favour of Lakatamia (the “liability judgments”). No amount in respect of the liability judgments has been repaid. One company which Mr Su was a director of was Cresta Overseas Ltd (“Cresta”). Mr Su was the beneficial owner of Cresta which owned two villas in Monaco. However, Cresta had defaulted on its mortgages concerning these properties and the lender sought to have them sold at an auction. The lender brought proceedings in the Monaco courts to effect these sales. Lakatamia applied to intervene in those proceedings, noting the freezing order which applies to Mr Su and his owned companies. Lakatamia’s application was rejected and the villas were ultimately sold in 2015 for a total price of €65.1 million. After making initial payments to the mortgage lender, over €27 million of the sale proceeds was paid to the client account of Cresta’s lawyer, Maître Zabaldano. Mr Su instructed a director of Cresta, Mr Chang, to request Maître Zabaldano to transfer this amount (approximately US$ 26.7 million) to the account of UP Shipping Corporation (“UP Shipping”), an entity owned and controlled by Mr Su’s mother (the “Transfer”). It is the Transfer which is the gave rise to these proceedings. The Transfer was in breach of the freezing order against Mr Su as the proceeds received from the property sales were considered to be beneficially owned by Mr Su. However, following the Transfer, the funds were subsequently dissipated by UP Shipping. In 2019, Mr Su was committed to prison for 21 months for contempt of court for previous breaches of the freezing order. In 2022, Lakatamia brought proceedings against Mr Su, Mr Chang, and Maître Zabaldano claiming that, as a result of the Transfer and breach of the freezing order, all three parties were liable for unlawful means conspiracy and this caused loss to Lakatamia. It was found that, if the funds had remained in Monaco, Lakatamia would have been able to enforce the liability judgments in Monaco and recover against the sale proceeds of the villas. The High Court held that Mr Su could not be liable for unlawful means conspiracy as the High Court considered that, for separate reasons, neither Mr Chang nor Maître Zabaldano could be liable themselves for unlawful means conspiracy. Lakatamia appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed Lakatamia’s appeal and considered that the High Court judge had made plainly wrong factual findings based on the evidence and incorrectly applied the law. They held that Mr Su, Mr Chang, and Maître Zabaldano were liable for unlawful means conspiracy. Mr Su now appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Date of issue

18 February 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top