New Judgment – Altrad Investment Authority SAS and others v Peter D Protopapas and others [2025] EWHC 2470 (Ch)

After a 2-day hearing, Mr Justice Marcus Smith (“the Judge”) has granted unprecedented declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to claims being pursued by the First Defendant, Mr Peter D Protopapas, in the name of the Cape Parties against the Claimants in the courts of South Carolina (USA). The Judge declared that these claims had been fully and finally settled by the Claimants and the Cape Parties, with the result that any liability asserted in the South Carolina proceedings had been extinguished; and the Court also granted injunctions ordering Mr Protopapas to discontinue the South Carolina proceedings.

In so doing, the Judge acknowledged that the granting of such declarations and injunctions amounted to an interference with the process of the South Carolina Court – such that it was necessary to ask whether the relief was consistent with the principle of comity.  The Court described the underlying receivership order as “exorbitant” and “long-arm”; and held that it was directly damaging the parties’ interests in this jurisdiction in a way that was itself “an afront to comity”. The Court also concluded that the proceedings in South Carolina were a collateral attack on the judgments and jurisdiction of the English court that needed to be protected against more broadly. As a result, the Judge applied the rarely-used principle that in exceptional cases comity is overridden by the need to protect British national interests or to prevent the violation of principles of international law.

Mr Protopapas brought claims in South Carolina as the purported receiver of the Cape Parties appointed pursuant to an order of the South Carolina Court (“the Receivership Order”, “the South Carolina Proceedings”). Mr Protopapas alleged that the members of the Altrad Group (a group of companies which had acquired the Cape Group in 2017) had participated in an unlawful scheme to cause the Cape Parties to evade their asbestos related liabilities in the United States arising out of sales of asbestos by a former subsidiary company of the Cape Parties in the 1960s and 1970s.

In November 2024, the High Court (Mr Justice Mann – Mann J) granted the Cape Parties declaratory relief confirming that the Receivership Order could not be recognised and that it had no effect, with the result that the Cape Parties’ directors remained in control.  Mann J also granted injunctions restraining Mr Protopapas from continuing to hold himself out as the receiver of the Cape Parties (“the Mann Order”).

In breach of the Mann Order, Mr Protopapas did not comply with the injunctions and continued to pursue the South Carolina Proceedings in the name of the Cape Parties against the Altrad Group.  In April 2025, and based on their ongoing authority to act for the Cape Parties declared in the Mann Order, the directors of the Cape Parties entered into a settlement agreement with the Altrad Group parties to settle and release any claims that might exist between them, including those claims advanced by Mr Protopapas in the South Carolina Proceedings (“Settlement Agreement”).

The Altrad Parties issued the present proceedings against Mr Protopapas in the High Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in relation to this Settlement Agreement.  The Cape Parties (acting by their directors) were joined as defendants, but consented to the relief sought and made submissions in support of it.

Following a hearing on 23 and 24 September 2025, on 30 September 2025 the Court handed down a judgment and made an order granting the relief sought. The relief included declarations confirming that the Settlement Agreement had been validly entered into and was binding on the parties to it; and explicitly confirmed that the Settlement Agreement had extinguished any claims and liability that was being asserted by Mr Protopapas in the name of the Cape Parties in the South Carolina Court.

In relation to the Settlement Agreement, the Judge agreed that the directors of Cape had valid authority to enter into the agreement notwithstanding Mr Protopapas’ purported appointment.  The Judge therefore held that the Settlement Agreement was valid and binding between the parties, and further that he could identify “no arguable basis” for contending that it was not effective.

The Judge was mindful of the fact that these declarations directly interfered with the proceedings that were progressing to a trial in the South Carolina Court but he held that they were nevertheless consistent with principles of judicial comity both in order to protect the private interests of the Cape Parties, but also in order to protect the integrity of the English Court’s own jurisdiction in circumstances where Mr Protopapas was engaged in a collateral attack on the prior judicial findings of the English Courts in Adams v Cape [1990] 1 Ch 433. The Court also made injunctions against Mr Protopapas, including a mandatory injunction requiring him to actively take steps to discontinue the proceedings in South Carolina.

The full judgment can be read here.

Angus Groom of South Square appeared for the successful Claimants (appearing with Derrick Dale KC, Fountain Court).  William Willson of South Square appeared for the successful Cape Parties.

The Claimants were instructed by Enyo Law LLP (by partner Jamie Leader and associate Olivia Gare) and the Cape Parties were instructed by Signature Litigation LLP (by partner Josh Wong and associate George Bazinas).