Gottlieb Cohen Foundation (USA) t/a Capitana Seas 2008 Trust (USA) v General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited & Anor

An appeal may be struck out as an abuse of process where it constitutes a collateral attack on, and re-litigation of, an issue conclusively determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. A matter of title finally determined by the courts cannot be reopened through collateral proceedings. Proceedings brought through a person subject to a civil proceedings order without the required leave may likewise be an abuse and a nullity. Purported consent orders procured without a party’s genuine agreement or knowledge may be treated as made without jurisdiction and based on deception. A sanctions objection does not assist a party with no standing to interfere in enforcement.

General Dynamics United Kingdom Limited, a judgment creditor of the State of Libya, applied to strike out Capitana Seas’ appeal and application for permission to appeal an order of HHJ Parfitt dated 12 November 2025. HHJ Parfitt had joined GDUK to collateral proceedings, struck out the claim and set aside two purported consent orders. The proceedings sought to reopen title to a London property previously determined in Libya v Capitana Seas [2012] EWHC 602 Comm. Capitana Seas and Libya did not appear. The issues were whether the appeal was a collateral attack and abuse of process, whether additional grounds independently justified strike-out, and whether permission to appeal should be refused as totally without merit.

GDUK’s application succeeded. The appeal was struck out in its entirety, and the application for permission to appeal was dismissed as totally without merit. The court did not determine the granular grounds of permission.

1. Collateral attack and re-litigation. The title to the property had been determined in the earlier proceedings before Popplewell J, and the appeal process had been exhausted. The court treated that determination as conclusive. A collateral attack on, or re-litigation of, a matter decided by a court of competent jurisdiction is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of process. This ground alone justified striking out the appeal.
2. Civil proceedings order. If Capitana Seas was being used as the instrument of Mr Gayle-Childs, the proceedings had been brought in breach of the civil proceedings order requiring him to obtain the court’s consent before instituting proceedings. The court found that he continued to control Capitana Seas and that no such leave had been obtained. This provided a further, self-standing basis for treating the collateral proceedings as an abuse and a nullity.
3. Purported consent orders. The orders dated 28 November 2024 and 11 July 2025 had not involved genuine agreement or the engaged participation of Libya. They had been procured through deception and misrepresentation. The court therefore upheld the conclusion that they were made without jurisdiction, were nullities and formed part of an abusive process.
4. Sanctions. The property had not been designated by sanctions. Capitana Seas, rather than the property, was subject to UK and EU sanctions. Since Capitana Seas had no proper role or standing in the enforcement process, the sanctions point was irrelevant.
5. Costs. Given GDUK’s complete success and the unusual circumstances necessitating the application, costs were ordered on the indemnity basis in the sum of £324,522.49.

• Chancery Appeals: On 31 July 2026, Mr Justice Marcus Smith struck out the appeal, dismissed the application for permission to appeal as totally without merit, and ordered indemnity costs of £324,522.49.
• Order of HHJ Parfitt: On 12 November 2025, GDUK was joined for the purpose of making a strike-out application. The collateral claim and orders made in it were struck out, and two purported consent orders were set aside as made without jurisdiction, nullities and based on abuse of process.