News and insights

Case Update: V Ships Ltd v Luna Management Corp, King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) | [2026] EWHC 700 (Comm)

Summary

In December 2025, Mr Justice Andrew Baker found a Liberian company, Luna Management Corp (“Luna”), and its sole director’s son, Lambros Stravelakis (“Lambros”) (together, the “Defendants”) guilty of contempt of court for breaching an antisuit injunction.

The antisuit injunction required Luna to take all necessary steps within four days to (a) discontinue and terminate specific civil proceedings brought by Luna in Greece, and (b) discharge any and all court orders made in those proceedings.

The injunction also prevented Luna from taking any steps in commencing or continuing any other civil claims in respect of a ship management agreement between Luna and V-Ships (the “Claimants”).

Luna was found to be in breach of the anti-suit injunction by continuing with the Greek proceedings. It was also found that the actions of Luna were in reality the actions of Lambros, so that Lambros himself was also found in breach.

Sentence 

This case update concerns the recent judgment from Mr Justice Andrew Baker (the “Judge”) on 20 March 2026 regarding the sanction of the Defendants following his finding in December 2025 of contempt of court.

It was found that the following factors were relevant:

• the breach of anti-suit injunction had been long standing and continuing;
• the breach was deliberate and intentional throughout and there was no doubt over Lambros’ understanding of what the Court had ordered, so that the Defendants had a high degree of culpability;
• the Claimants had been seriously prejudiced by the breach by being forced to take part in, and bear the substantial costs of, the foreign proceedings; and
• Lambros had shown no remorse or offered any apology for himself or Luna’s conduct.

In terms of mitigation, it was found that:

• Lambros had no past history of contempt of court and appeared to have been a businessman of good character; and
• a custodial sentence would be harsher for Lambros than in a usual situation considering the death of his father (who was the third defendant in these proceedings) four months prior.

However, it was rejected that Lambros was only “in control” for a limited period and that he may have not been the only person culpable for Luna’s actions. Instead, the Judge commented that the Greek proceedings “have only ever been Lambros’ creature” and that he has always been in control.

It was found that a custodial sentence was undoubtedly justified given the seriousness of the continued breach. While the mitigation points above are reasons to impose a shorter custodial term, an immediate custodial sentence of considerable length was necessary and the only realistic option to force compliance.

The Judge ordered the confiscation of Luna’s assets. Lambros was sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence of 14 months, reduced from 18 months by a 20% reduction for mitigation. The Judge indicated he might have to reduce this to 6 months if an application for partial remission of sentence was made and the Greek proceedings were terminated before they had proceeded to judgment.

Lambros was ordered to pay the Claimants’ costs of the contempt application against his father on the understanding that Lambros had sought to make his father take the blame for his actions.

Comments

In the shipping context, arbitration agreements are given considerable weight by English courts, who have now shown they will impose harsh, custodial sentences for breaches of any anti-suit injunctions issued.

The judgment is an unusual example of a strict application of the court’s power to make a custodial order for breach of an anti-suit injunction.

The judgment also shows that English courts are willing to look beyond the legal directorship of a company to understand who is actually making the decisions and hold responsible individuals accountable.

However, the final comments from the judgment also raise practical questions as to the enforcement of a contempt of court sentence. Is the possibility of an 8-month reduction of sentence enough to incentivise a defendant to comply with an anti-suit injunction they have been actively disobeying?

The full judgment can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/committal-for-contempt-of-court-v-ships-limited-v-luna-management-corporation-and-another/