Lakatamia Shipping Company Ltd & Ors v Su (aka Su Hsin Chi; aka Nobu Moritomo) & Ors

Early discharge from imprisonment for contempt is exceptional where the sentence has both punitive and coercive functions and the underlying breach remains unremedied. The court should consider the structured factors identified in Swindon Borough Council v Webb, including proportionality, contrition, steps taken to prevent further breach, protection of the injured party and any special circumstances. A committal hearing should ordinarily allow the respondent at least 14 days to prepare. That period may be abridged only where fairness is preserved. A perceived flight risk does not justify rushing a hearing where existing restrictive orders provide an alternative.

The judgment determined three applications arising from longstanding enforcement proceedings between the claimant shipping companies and the first defendant. The applications concerned continuation of an injunction requiring disclosure and access to electronic accounts, the first defendant’s application for early discharge from imprisonment for contempt, and the listing of a further committal application before his scheduled release.

The court adjourned the injunction return date, refused early discharge, and declined to list the further committal application before release. The central questions were whether the contempt had been sufficiently purged, whether the pandemic constituted a special factor justifying early release, and whether the committal hearing could fairly take place within the remaining period of custody.

1. The existing injunction remained binding despite the adjournment of its return date. The first defendant was required to use his best efforts to comply and provide the requested information.

2. Applying the guidance in Swindon Borough Council v Webb, early discharge was refused. The sentence retained a coercive function because disclosure obligations remained unfulfilled. The court could not conclude that punishment was proportionate if the contempts remained unremedied, and early release would ordinarily prejudice the rule of law in those circumstances.

3. The application was unsupported by genuine contrition, a demonstrated resolve not to breach further orders, or proposals protecting the claimant. The COVID-19 restrictions, reduced visits and alleged health risks did not amount to exceptional circumstances, particularly when only a short period of custody remained. The authority of Her Majesty’s Solicitor-General v Stephen Dodd concerned materially different circumstances and supplied no relevant principle.

4. Under CPR Part 81, a committal hearing should ordinarily be listed at least 14 days after service. The period may be abridged only where the respondent has a reasonable opportunity to understand and answer the allegations. Given the disputed service, the volume and history of the material, limited access to legal advice, possible need for an interpreter and pandemic-related arrangements, a hearing within days would be unfair.

5. The first defendant was a flight risk, but the existing restrictions and reporting requirements under the Waksman Order provided alternative protection. The further committal application was therefore not listed before his release. The parties were directed to agree a timetable for a hearing after 11 April 2020.