Executive Summary
- AMNS Middle East FZE ("Claimant") seeks repayment of US$52.8 million from LIQS Pte Ltd ("Defendant") for unjust enrichment, alleging payment was made under a contract for steel products that were never delivered.
- The Defendant ceased participation in the proceedings in October 2024, citing inability to afford legal representation, despite prior full engagement.
- The Court proceeded with the trial in Defendant’s absence, striking out its defence and counterclaim but requiring the Claimant to prove its case.
- The case involves complex historical transactions (2014-2016) obscured by corporate restructuring and lack of documentation from Defendant.
Sanctions Highlights
- — No sanctions implications identified in the case text.
Emerging Risks
- Non-cooperation and non-attendance by Defendant increase litigation risk and complicate evidence gathering.
- Lack of transparency around the original transaction and Defendant’s financial status raises concerns about potential hidden liabilities or undisclosed assets.
- Absence of Defendant’s disclosure of financial records (2014-2019) may hinder full case resolution and enforcement of judgment.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case involves entities linked to multiple jurisdictions: Claimant based in the Middle East, Defendant in Singapore, with litigation in the UK.
- The UK court’s handling of cross-border commercial disputes underscores its role as a key venue for international trade litigation.
- The involvement of Indian counsel (Sudhanshu Swaroop KC, Rishab Gupta) and UK legal firms highlights ongoing India-UK-US legal-commercial ties.
- The case reflects challenges in enforcing contracts and resolving disputes amid complex corporate restructurings across jurisdictions.
Economic Intelligence
- The disputed sum (US$52.8 million) is significant, indicating substantial commercial stakes in steel trade contracts.
- The Defendant’s prior ability to afford top-tier international legal representation until mid-2024 suggests fluctuating financial conditions or strategic withdrawal.
- Non-payment of court-ordered costs (GBP 12,000) by Defendant signals potential financial distress or tactical default.
- The case illustrates risks in international commodity trading, especially where corporate restructuring obscures transactional clarity.
Strategic Recommendations
- Litigants should ensure robust due diligence on counterparties’ financial health and corporate structure before large advance payments.
- Courts and claimants must prepare for non-cooperative defendants by securing early disclosure orders and considering trial in absence.
- Legal teams should leverage cross-jurisdictional expertise to navigate complex restructuring and enforce judgments internationally.
- Monitoring of Defendant’s financial disclosures and asset tracing is critical post-judgment to secure recovery.
- Stakeholders should assess reputational risks associated with opaque transactions and non-participation in legal processes.
---
Source Notes: *Sanctions Intelligence Digest* — https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/150.html