Summary

The Claimant ("Zhongshan") seeks final charging orders over two properties owned by the Defendant (who I will refer to as Nigeria). Interim charging orders were made in respect of those properties on 16th June and 18th August 2023. This is my decision on whether those orders should be made final.

On 26 March 2021 an arbitral tribunal made a final award of $55,675,000 plus interest of $9,400,000 and costs of £2,864,445 payable by Nigeria to Zhongshan. On 21 December 2021 Mrs Justice Cockerill gave permission to Zhongshan to enforce the arbitration award in this jurisdiction in the same manner as if it was a judgment or order of the High Court and ordered that Nigeria pay Zhongshan's costs of the application. Nigeria sought to appeal that decision unsuccessfully and a further costs order was made against Nigeria by the Court of Appeal.

By the time of the interim charging order applications, Nigeria had not complied with the award or made any payment of the costs orders. The outstanding sums were, including the costs and interest, equivalent to around £59.6 million. Nigeria had not made any payment by the date of the hearing.

The properties against which the charging orders are sought are 15 Aigburth Hall Road, Liverpool ("Aigburth") and Beech Lodge, 49 Calderstones Road, Liverpool ("Beech Lodge"). Nigeria owns both properties. Together, Zhongshan estimates they are likely to be worth between perhaps £1.3 and £1.7 million. Neither property is recorded as diplomatic or consular premises or premises of the mission or residential property notified as a private residence of a member of the mission. None of those listed as resident there on publicly available databases have any connection with the mission.

Nigeria objects to the interim charging order being made final on a number of grounds:

i) The application for the charging order and the interim charging order were not properly served in accordance with s12(1) of the Sate Immunity Act 1978 ("SIA").

ii) State immunity applies to the premises as the acting Head of Nigeria's High Commission in London has certified under s13(5) of the SIA that the properties are not in use or intended for use for commercial purposes and Zhongshan has not proven the contrary.

iii) There was a failure to give full and frank disclosure at the interim charging order stage by Zhongshan and therefore the court ought not exercise its discretion to make the charging order final.

iv) The court should decline to make a final charging order as Zhongshan is taking a multiplicity of enforcement actions and there is no safe way of knowing the totality of the sums which may be recovered in other claims in respect of the same arbitration award.

...