Nam Tai Property Inc. et Al v Greater Sail Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Judge: Jack, J
• Judgment Date: 04 May 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] ECSC J0504-3
• Year: 2022
• Docket Number: CLAIM No. BVIHC (COM) 2022/0016

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)

CLAIM No. BVIHC (COM) 2022/0016

AND CLAIM No. BVIHC (COM) 2022/0042

Between:

(1) Nam Tai Property Inc. (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands)

(2) Nam Tai Group Limited (a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands)

(3) Nam Tai Investment (Shenzhen) Co Ltd (a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China)

Claimants

and

Greater Sail Limited (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands)

Defendant

Between:

(1) Nam Tai Property Inc. (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands)

(2) Nam Tai Group Limited (a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands)

(3) Nam Tai Investment (Shenzhen) Co Ltd (a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China)

Claimants

and

(1) Greater Sail Limited (a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands)

(2) Li Jianping (also known as Gigi Lee)

(3) Mai Fan

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Edward Davies QC and Mr. Ben Griffiths, with them Mr. Nicholas Burkill of Ogier for the Claimants

Mr. John Carrington QC, Mr. Gerard Clarke and Mr. Ben Woolgar with them Mr. Andrew Emery of Emery Cooke for the Defendants

JUDGMENT (SENTENCING FOR CONTEMPT)

1 Jack, J [Ag.]: On 14 ^th March 2022 I found the three defendants in action 2022/0042 guilty of one allegation of contempt of court. I adjourned sentence. I heard mitigation on 12 ^th April 2002 and further adjourned sentence pending a hearing of various matters before the Court of Appeal. In fact those matters have not yet been determined by the Court of Appeal. Mr. Carrington QC suggests that a final resolution may not be reached before the Long Vacation. It is in my judgment inappropriate to leave sentencing for contempt outstanding for so long and I therefore hand down this judgment.

2 The one matter in respect of which I found contempt proven was the first allegation that Greater Sail failed by 4pm on 8 ^th February 2022 to send letters to the offices of three regulatory bodies in the People's Republic of China. The Court's order in respect of the letters was complied eventually, but with a delay of some 20 days or 14 working days.

3 In criminal cases, the main purposes of sentencing are punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. The same applies in quasi-criminal matters like contempt. In the current case, I have already indicated in my earlier judgment that the contempt did not pass the custody threshold in respect of Ms. Lee and Mr. Mai or the similar threshold for appointing sequestrators over Greater Sail. Issues of rehabilitation have accordingly very little importance in considering sentence in the current case.

4 Mr. Carrington QC, who appeared for the defendants, submitted that this was a case in which the Court could mark its disapproval of the defendants' breaches of this Court's order by making solely an order of costs. A further financial penalty was not required. He pointed to the fact that the period of disobedience to the Court's order was only twenty days (and less in terms of working days). No prejudice has been caused by the breach. Further the defendants had...