Addleshaws client Ablyazov debarred from defending $6bn claim
Addleshaw Goddard client Muktar Ablyazov has been debarred from defending claims totalling $6bn against him after the Court of Appeal (CoA) ruled that he could not overturn a committal order against him.
Mukhtar Ablyazov
Addleshaw partners Ian Hargreaves and Richard Leedham instructed 20 Essex Street’s Duncan Matthews QC and Charles Béar QC of Fountain Court to lead the appeal against Mr Justice Teare’s February judgment (16 February 2012) in which Ablyazov was sentenced to 22 months in his absence because he failed to disclose the full extent of his assets.
Kazakhstan’s JSC BTA Bank had instructed Hogan Lovells to pursue claims against Ablyazov, the bank’s former chairman, after alleging that he absconded from the country after embezzling funds from the bank (6 February 2012).
New Square Chambers’ Stephen Smith QC, instructed by Hogan Lovells partner Chris Hardman, contended that Ablyazov should be debarred from defending the case if his appeal against the committal order failed (1 March 2012).
Today the court said: “Mr Ablyazov has been unconscionable in his refusal to abide by the orders of the court. […] It cannot be just or fair, or proportionate, to permit a contemnor to avoid the consequences of his contempt by the expedient of disappearing from sight (but not from the ability to communicate with his lawyers)……It is difficult to imagine a party to commercial litigation who has acted with more cynicism, opportunism and deviousness towards court orders than Mr Ablyazov.”
In a statement today Addleshaws said it would appeal the ruling and also attempt to overturn Teare J’s refusal to recuse himself from the case (1 November 2012).
It read: “Mr Ablyazov continues to maintain his right to defend the claims and has applied for permission to appeal the judgment. He is also seeking to protect his right to a fair trial by appealing Mr Justice Teare’s decision not to recuse himself, which followed Mr Ablyazov’s application that he do so on the basis of an appearance of bias.”
In May the High Court said Addleshaws was not under a legal obligation to disclose the whereabouts of its client after Hogan Lovells was refused an application to force the disclosure (17 May 2012).
The CoA ruling against Ablyazov means that Hogan Lovells can now enter judgment against him and move to enforce against his assets in order to recoup money for the bank and its creditors. The full trial in which Ablyazov was supposed to appear as a defendant was due to start tomorrow.
The case will go ahead against remaining defendants who are accused of conspiring with Ablyazov to defraud the bank.
Welcoming today’s ruling Hardman said: “As the BTA Bank proceedings have made abundantly clear, the English courts continue to show that they’re willing to develop the application of the law in an attempt to ensure that their orders are not flouted by determined, well-funded, but unscrupulous defendants.”
Readers' comments (7)
Anonymous | 6-Nov-2012 2:14 pm
Got to love English Justice - a freezing order based on a prima facie case leads to the Defendant not telling the court all the assets he has, which lands him in prison because it is a contempt, time which he now needs to serve, before he can try a case that he is now prevented from defending himself in. Dont forget readers: the bloke may even be innocent and the claim may have been rejected! I don't think he needs our sympathy, but on a serious note: this is not what the freezing injunction regime was set up for !!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew Masterson | 6-Nov-2012 3:19 pm
It is hard to have much sympathy for Ablyazov.
It would take quite some contempt for the English judiciary to send a man down for two years. The court clearly did not believe that this was inadvertant non disclosure.
"It is difficult to imagine a party to commercial litigation who has acted with more cynicism, opportunism and deviousness towards court orders than Mr Ablyazov.”
His preference to hide his whereabouts, presumably outside the jurisdiction, looks very prudent in the circumstances.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vlad the Impaler | 6-Nov-2012 4:16 pm
Suspect the OP is from Addleshaws. Yeah right. Why did he wait till the very last moment to ask Teare J to recuse himself - and on pretty fanciful grounds. This guy deserves no sympathy.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Nov-2012 6:23 pm
It is hard to have much sympathy for the courts on a day when of the 7 so called "Lords" hearing the Prudential appeal on privilege, only 1 or 2 appeared to be wearing a poppy. Some counsel were equally in a shabby state of dress. Lets hope they turn up with more respect tomorrow.
Seven grey men who would not be determining an important common law matter but for those brave men and women who died in 2 WWs. Very sad from the public gallery.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Nov-2012 9:52 am
God preserve us from poppy fascism.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymouse | 7-Nov-2012 11:33 am
Totally agree with Anonymous 9.52am.
My father fought in WW2. I have served in the armed forces.
I wouldn't wear a poppy if you paid me. It is now yet another mark of pc and respect for the armed forces has nothing to do with it.
I was up at the Bombers memorial on Beachy Head the other day and thought about how those young men must have felt flying off on a mission with a 10% chance of not returning. How many of today's poppy wearers have even the slightest notion of the kind of fears these lads faced day after day.
So leave the Judges and lawyers alone. You don't need to wear a poppy to understand the meaning of respect.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Z. Ahmed | 7-Nov-2012 6:15 pm
Good on him its about about time someone screwed the banks. The banks in UK are getting screwed nicely with men in pinstripe suits. Are they also getting the same scrutiny and asset seizure? Seriously I am sure that politics and other forces are at play in these types of cases. Would a charman of a bank like that risk getting shot and endangering his family when he already enjoys a fat pay cheque? Did someone want him out and put his name up for grabs? The difference is in UK you can get away with it and get a golden handshake! I love UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment