The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Clyde & Co has been ordered by the High Court to disclose the contact details of a client who was found to be in contempt of court and in breach of asset disclosure orders.
Ruling in a preliminary matter relating to the mammoth case that is JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors, Mr Justice Henderson told the firm it must give contact details for its client, Syrym Shalabayev, a defendant in the primary proceedings.
In the primary case, JSC BTA Bank of Kazakhstan is attempting to recoup losses of $290m (£181.2m), which it alleges were fraudulently misappropriated by its former chairman, Mukhtar Ablyazov, who is living in the UK.
Hogan Lovells partner Chris Hardman has been instructed to pursue the losses for the bank. He instructed Serle Court’s Richard Marshall QC to lead Caley Wright of New Square Chambers in this latest claim.
It is alleged that Ablyazov’s brother-in-law, Shalabayev, was part of the conspiracy to defraud the bank. Clydes partner Julian Connerty is acting for the defendant, who was served a worldwide freezing order in November 2010 with committal proceedings launched against him in December.
By May Shalabayev had not responded and Mr Justice Briggs found him to be in contempt of court. Briggs J said the alleged contempt “is proved beyond reasonable doubt”. However, Shalabayev refused to comply with the freezing order and refused to pay the £70,000 interim costs order made against him on 27 June.
Consequently, the bank went to the High Court to force Clydes to disclose his contact details. It argued there was a public interest in court orders being obeyed. Clydes’ counsel, Matrix Chambers’ Tim Owen QC, countered that it would pose an inherent conflict of interest for the firm.