PJSC National Bank Trust & Anor v Boris Mints & Ors
[2023] EWHC 118 (Comm)
Navigator Equities LTD & Anor. v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska
3 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 457 (Comm)
High Court
Oleg Deripaska wanted to delay his court case because his lawyers weren't available and he needed more time. The judge said no, because the case has been delayed many times already, there's enough money to get new lawyers, and Deripaska's team hasn't been very helpful in scheduling the trial. The case will go ahead as planned.
Key Facts
- •Committal proceedings (Contempt Application) brought by Navigator Equities Ltd and Vladimir Chernukhin against Oleg Deripaska.
- •Underlying dispute stemmed from a 2010 joint venture to develop a Moscow real estate site.
- •Deripaska found to have advanced a dishonest case and paid a bribe in previous arbitration proceedings.
- •Claimants allege Deripaska breached undertakings given in lieu of a worldwide freezing order by re-domiciling a Jersey company to Russia.
- •Previous trial adjourned due to sanctions preventing Deripaska from paying legal representation.
- •Deripaska changed solicitors from RPC to Peters & Peters, then to Quillon Law.
- •Application for adjournment of the trial due to counsel unavailability and insufficient time for preparation.
- •OFSI granted a special license covering legal fees shortly before the hearing.
Legal Principles
Adjournment applications are decided in accordance with the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost, ensuring parties are on an equal footing.
CPR 1.1(2)(a)
A fair trial must be ensured, even if it requires an adjournment, unless it causes uncompensatable injustice to the respondent.
Khudados v Hayden [2007] EWCA Civ 1316 at [39], Bilta (UK) v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221 at [30], Teinaz v Wandsworth London BC [2002] IRLR 721 at [20]–[21]
Parties cannot relitigate matters already decided unless there's a significant change of circumstances or material new evidence.
Golubovich v Golubovich [2022] EWHC 1605 (Ch) at §113
A defendant has a right to choose counsel, but this is subordinate to achieving a fair trial. The court can override this choice if there are relevant and sufficient grounds.
Re Maguire [2018] 1 WLR 1412, Mayzit v Russia [2005] 43 EHRR 38, Croissant v Germany [1992] 16 EHRR 135, Dvorski v Croatia
Outcomes
Application for adjournment dismissed.
While Deripaska has a right to choose counsel, this is subject to limits. The court considered the multiple adjournments, ample time to secure alternative counsel, sufficient budget, and lack of proactive engagement from Deripaska's team. A fair trial was deemed achievable without the adjournment.
Similar Cases
Hulley Enterprises Limited & Ors The Russian Federation
[2023] EWHC 1129 (Comm)
Transomas Limited & Anor v Kheri Trading Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2708 (Ch)
OCM Maritime Nile LLC & Anor v Courage Shipping Co & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1132 (Comm)
Manolete Partners PLC v Mohammed Jawed Karim & Ors
[2024] EWHC 549 (Ch)