Billionaire heiress sues for £1m after trip on doomed Titan sub was cancelled when five people died in tragic implosion
A BILLIONAIRE heiress is suing for £1million after her planned trip on the ill-fated Titan submersible was axed.
Karen Lo spent £680,000 to go on the once-in-a-lifetime trip to see the wreckage of the Titanic.
Her original voyage on the OceanGate Titan craft was cancelled in 2018 after the vessel was struck by lightning so she was given a priority booking.
But in June 2023, the sub imploded during a dive to the wreck – killing all five passengers, including OceanGate founder Stockton Rush.
Karen is now suing Henry Cookson, who organised the trip through his ultra-luxury adventure travel company Cookson’s Adventures, for £1million.
The Hong Kong heiress, who is worth around £758million, is locked in a court battle in London to get her original £680,000 back – plus eight per cent interest.
She claims the Holland Park-based Henry Cookson Adventures Ltd should be held responsible for the trip.
However, Mr Cookson’s company is embroiled in the court row, arguing that the heiress was aware of its no-refund policy and that she had a chance to go on the expedition but chose not to.
The former safari guide and polar explorer runs Cookson’s Adventures, an ultra-luxury travel company offering bespoke trips that often cost millions of pounds.
His career has involved many high-flying individuals with his website even boasting how he previously guided Prince Harry to the North Pole.
Papers lodged with London’s High court describe how Mr Cookson had previously been “on friendly personal terms” with Ms Lo, even attending her wedding, and had organised trips worth “tens of millions of US dollars” for her and her guests.
Her barrister Jack Harding states in court papers: “The defendant agreed to organise and supply a two-week expedition for the claimant and 17 others to visit the wreck of the Titanic between 30th June and 14th July 2018.
“The defendant’s supplier for the expedition was OceanGate, a company which, at the material time, specialised in the provision of crewed submersibles for tourism, research and exploration.”
Having paid around £670,000 up front for the trip in May 2018, an email was sent by Cookson Adventure to Ms Lo explaining that the mission had been cancelled because the Titan craft had been struck by lightning and its electronic systems damaged.
The contract “provided ‘clients’ with 100% credit toward 2019 Titanic dives or any other expedition offered by OceanGate” due to the cancellation, but “OceanGate did not carry out any further dives to the Titanic wreck in 2019 or 2020,” he said.
“The claimant, through her agents and legal representatives, subsequently requested repayment of the sums paid under the contract. The defendant has refused to refund any of the claimant’s money.”
Ms Lo is suing under the Package Travel Regulations 1992, arguing it was an express or implied term of the contract that the dive would take place within a “reasonable time.”
“In repudiatory breach of the aforementioned express and/or implied terms, the Titanic Expedition did not take place in 2018 or at all,” he says.
“As a result of the defendant’s breach of contract, the claimant was entitled to and did elect to treat the contract as at an end.
“As a result of the matters set out above, the claimant seeks damages for her wasted expenditure in entering into a contract which was never performed.
“The defendant was enriched, at the expense of the claimant, by the payment and receipt of her money. It is irrelevant that the defendant may have subsequently passed some or all of the money to its own supplier.
“The claimant did not receive any benefit from the money that she paid to the claimant and/or the defendant did not provide any service of benefit to the claimant.”
In defence of the company, Henk Soede denies the heiress is owed even a penny.
He said: “She was introduced to Mr Cookson through a personal friend in 2011-12 and has been using the defendant’s services since then, in every case for exclusive unique and tailor-made trips at very high cost.
“For example, in 2018/19, after the postponed dive voyage to which this claim relates, the defendant arranged and the claimant paid in full for a multi-million dollar trip to the Antarctic on three yachts, including the super-yacht purchased in the name of the claimant the year previously, with twin helicopters and two submersibles, for a total of 13 guests and four nannies.
“The claimant’s annual budget with the defendant ran into tens of missions of US dollars.
“The claimant and Mr Cookson were on friendly personal terms and Mr Cookson had attended her wedding in Rome and accompanied a number of her friends who traveled with the couple to Egypt as part of their honeymoon.
“At no stage did the defendant agree to ‘organise and supply’ an expedition for the claimant and her guests to visit the wreck of The Titanic,” the lawyer states, insisting that Mr Cookson’s company instead had an “affiliate agreement” to be a booking agent for some of the planned trips, with OceanGate remaining the “organiser”.
The contract had also contained a no-refund clause, with the agreement being that a credit towards a future voyage with priority booking rights be provided instead if the mission did not go ahead for technical reasons.
“The defendant disputes this claim because, in outline, the Package Travel Regulations 1992 do not apply because the holiday was neither sold nor offered to be sold in the UK,” he says.
“Alternatively, even if the regulations did apply, the claimant would not be entitled to a refund as the package was not cancelled but only postponed, in accordance with the agreed terms.
“Nor in any event would the defendant be liable to refund monies paid to it, which, as the claimant was well aware, had been passed on to the party providing the voyage, which was also, if the regulations applied, the organiser.
“The claimant did not take up the credit within a reasonable time and thereby waived or lost her entitlement. Further, by notifying the defendant that she did not intend on using the credit in the future, the claimant terminated the contract and/or cancelled the voyage.
“Alternatively, the contract was in any event frustrated as a result of the complete loss of the dive vessel in 2023 and the resulting cessation of the provider’s trading activities.”
The lawyer states that whilst no dives took place in 2019 and Covid restrictions stopped any missions in 2020, dives took place in 2021 and 2022 which Ms Lo could have joined using her credit, prior to the ill-fated final mission in 2023.
“At all material times, OceanGate acknowledged that the defendant was entitled to a credit for un-taken 2018 missions,” he says.
“However, the claimant made clear that she did not want to use her credit in 2019 or at any time in the future.”
Her solicitors had instead demanded a refund in June 2019, he said.
The case, unless settled, will come before a judge in court at a later date.
How the Titan tragedy occured
THE Titan submersible was the first privately-owned submersible with a claimed maximum depth of 4,000 metres.
It was the first completed crewed submersible with a hull constructed of titanium and carbon fiber composite materials.
After testing with dives to its maximum intended depth in 2018 and 2019, the original composite hull of Titan developed fatigue damage and was replaced by 2021.
In that year, OceanGate began transporting paying customers to the wreck of the Titanic, completing several dives to the wreck site in 2021 and 2022.
During the submersible’s first 2023 expedition, it imploded during the crew’s descent to the wreckage of Titanic, about 320 nautical miles (590 km) south-southeast off the coast of Newfoundland.
The submersible was carrying tourists Hamish Harding, Shahzada Dawood, his son Suleman Dawood, crew member and Titanic expert Paul-Henri Nargeolet, and OceanGate founder and the vessel’s pilot, Stockton Rush.