Jsc Bta Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Teare |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1835 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | No 2009 FOLIO 1099 |
| Date | 17 May 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1835 (Comm)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Court No 8
The Rolls Building
100 Fetter Lane
London EC4
Mr Justice Teare
No 2009 FOLIO 1099
Mr S Smith QC, Mr T Akkouh and MS E GILLETT (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimant/Applicant.
Mr D Matthews QC and Mr J Sheehan (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) appeared on behalf of Salim Shalabayev.
Mr G Hayman (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard) appeared on behalf of Mukhtar Ablyazov.
Friday, 17 May 2013
APPROVED RULING
The court has to decide whether to permit Mr Salim Shalabayev to be heard on the Bank's application for a final charging order in respect of a flat in Alberts court. The Bank says that Mr Shalabayev is in contempt of court and that the court ought not, in those circumstances, to hear him.
The Bank accepts that the court's discretion has to be exercised by reference to the principles discussed by Lord Justice Moore-Bick in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWCA civ 639. That was a case where there had been findings of contempt against Mr Ablyazov made as a result of an application by the Bank for an order that Mr Ablyazov be committed for contempt.
It is apparent from the judgment of Lord Justice Moore-Bick that the governing principle is set out by Lord Bingham in Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim where he said:
"The test is whether in the circumstances of an individual case the interests of justice are best served by hearing a party in contempt or by refusing to do so, always bearing in mind the paramount importance which the court must attach to the prompt and unquestioning observance of court orders."
At paragraph 28 Lord Justice Moore-Bick said:
"When deciding whether it is in the interests of justice not to hear a contemnor the court must take into account all the circumstances of the case. These will include the nature of the proceedings and the consequences for both parties of the decision one way or the other, but the importance of allowing a contemnor to contest the decision against him is a factor which has been emphasised in domestic case law. The Strasbourg cases certainly reflect the particular circumstances under consideration but they emphasise in a more general way the importance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial