Executive Summary
- AMNS Middle East FZE ("Claimant") seeks repayment of US$52.8 million from LIQS PTE Ltd ("Defendant") for unjust enrichment.
- Claimant alleges payment was made under a steel purchase contract but no steel or services were delivered.
- Defendant ceased participation in litigation in August 2024, citing inability to afford legal representation.
- Court proceeded with trial in Defendant’s absence, striking out Defendant’s defence and counterclaim.
- Defendant failed to comply with disclosure orders related to financial documents from 2014-2019.
- Judgment likely to be entered against Defendant based on evidence presented by Claimant.
Sanctions Highlights
- — No sanctions implications identified in the case text.
Emerging Risks
- Defendant’s non-participation and non-compliance with disclosure orders increase risk of adverse judgment.
- Lack of transparency around 2014-2016 transactions and corporate restructuring complicates fact-finding.
- Financial status and motivations of Defendant remain unclear, raising concerns about asset recovery.
- Potential for Defendant to evade accountability by non-engagement in legal process.
Geopolitical Impact
- Case involves entities linked to multiple jurisdictions: Claimant (Middle East), Defendant (Singapore-based), with litigation in the UK.
- Geopolitical relevance includes India (legal counsel for Claimant), UK (venue and legal framework), and US (currency of payment).
- Reflects complexities of cross-border commercial disputes amid shifting global trade and corporate structures.
- Highlights UK Commercial Court’s role in adjudicating international commercial disputes involving Middle East and Asian parties.
Economic Intelligence
- Large disputed sum (US$52.8 million) underscores significant financial stakes in steel trade contracts.
- Corporate restructuring and opaque transaction history suggest risks in due diligence and contract enforcement.
- Defendant’s prior ability to afford top-tier legal representation contrasts with sudden withdrawal, indicating possible financial distress or strategic default.
- Costs awarded against Defendant (£12,000) remain unpaid, indicating further financial non-compliance.
Strategic Recommendations
- Litigants in cross-border commercial disputes should maintain robust documentation and transparency, especially during corporate restructuring.
- Courts and claimants should prepare for non-cooperative defendants by securing early disclosure orders and considering default judgments.
- Monitor Defendant’s financial status and asset locations for enforcement and recovery opportunities post-judgment.
- Legal teams should leverage UK Commercial Court’s procedural tools to mitigate risks of defendant non-participation.
- Consider geopolitical and jurisdictional factors when structuring contracts and dispute resolution clauses in international trade.
---
Source Notes: *Sanctions Intelligence Digest* — https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/150.txt