The High Court has maintained an injunction restricting an Irish jewellery company from selling or distributing over €500,000 worth of jewels. The ruling passed by Justice David Nolan on Thursday, upheld the injunction filed by World Diamond Group SPA, against Shuwan Li, trading under the names Empress Fine Jewels and Empress Fine Jewels Limited.
WDG’s request for the defendant to surrender 77 pieces of jewellery in their possession to a neutral party until the extension of the injunction was decided, was dismissed by the judge. The temporary injunction was sanctioned the previous week concerning the accused’s apparent noncompliance to return a consignment worth €585,000 to WDG.
The accused, denying any wrongdoing, sought a revocation of the injunction. The defense, led by Peter Shanley BL and solicitor Brian O’Brien, argued that WDG had not revealed all pertinent information during their injunction plea. They stated that the real motive behind WDG’s legal move was a fallout between the plaintiff’s CEO Castrenze Giuliano and Ms Li, following the termination of their four year romantic relationship when Mr Giuliano opted for another partner.
They further suggested that the continuing injunction would negatively affect the defendant’s business as the contentious consignment forms 40 per cent of their stock, making their continued operations unfeasible.
Contrarily, WDG, defended by Barney Quirke SC and Hugh Byrne BL alongside Harrington’s Solicitors’ Ellen Wrynn, dismissed these claims. Mr Quirke termed Ms Li’s inability to run her business without the disputed stock as complete fabrication, denying any lack of honesty by his client. He acknowledged a past intimate relationship between Mr Giuliano and Ms Li but disputed its portrayal by her. The counsel further clarified that the company, not Mr Giuliano, commenced the lawsuit due to concerns regarding the payment for supplied goods and it was no way linked to the termination of the romantic relationship.
The court has been asked by WDG to permit a change in their assertions following a reported occurrence where representatives of the plaintiff were present at the defendants’ shop doing a pre-scheduled scrutiny of the goods. The lawyers shared that only €198,000 worth of goods or 77 items of jewellery claimed by WDG were inspected by the staff. According to the lawyer, the other portion of the merchandise that WDG wishes to recover was unaccounted for.
For a duration, the employees were not allowed to depart the Dublin 2 property unless they agreed to sign a paper allegedly created to verify that specific jewellery items included in the consignment at the heart of the dispute had been cash paid to WDG. The lawyer stated the paper’s contents were completely invalid.
The employees allege they were intimidated by Ms Li, who was also present at the inspection, with threats of being “tossed into the river” and that WDG faced financial collapse. As a result, the lawyer mentioned that they were now calling for an additional ruling instructing the defendants to hand over the remaining items to a neutral third party who would safeguard them.
However, Mr Shanley countered these allegations about the inspection, which he claimed Ms Li fiercely disputed. Mr Justice Nolan, in the final ruling, declined both requests. He didn’t decide conclusively on what he termed as “a complex” conflict and stated that he believed enough data was presented in court to warrant the injunction. He voiced worries about the defendants’ lack of financial documentation supporting their request to lift the injunction.
The judge, expressing his apprehension over the alleged incidents during the inspection, decided against ordering the defendant to yield any items to an independent stakeholder. The judge was content that maintaining the injunction would sufficiently safeguard the plaintiff’s position and that violating that order would be tantamount to court contempt. After announcing his verdict, the judge postponed the proceeding to a date in April.
The injunction was requested by the judge last week upon learning that the commercial relationship between the entities, which started in 2019, had “completely deteriorated.” It is alleged that Shuwan Li runs her jewellery trade from Johnstons Court in Dublin 2. The second accused is a company connected to the first accused.
Ms Li asserts that her company has never conducted any business transactions and thus shouldn’t be implicated in the legal proceedings. WDG alleges that a financial dispute emerged as a result of an amount of money they believe Ms Li’s company owes them for goods provided. Discussions were held between both parties, and plans were established to pay back the purported debt. However, due to WDG’s concerns about repayment methods, they decided to dissolve their business ties and demanded the recovery of several items that had been forwarded to Ms Li’s enterprise in Ireland.
When an alleged denial to give back a batch of jewellery given the previous year transpired, WDG proceeded to file a lawsuit in the High Court against the defendants. In addition to wanting the goods back, WDG is also seeking damages, an assertion that they are the lawful owners of the goods, and a court judgment against the defendants for an unrelated €155,000 which WDG claims is owed for other goods provided to the defendants. However, the defendant disputes the alleged amount of money owed to WDG, denying any misconduct.