Nomihold Securities Inc. (Proposed Respondent) v Mobile Telesystems Finance Sa (Proposed Appellant)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE WARD
Judgment Date19 January 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWCA Civ 41
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket NumberA3/2011/2343 A3/2011/2343A
Date19 January 2012

[2012] EWCA Civ 41

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, COMMERCIAL COURT

MR JUSTICE BURTON

The Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Ward

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton

A3/2011/2343 A3/2011/2343A

In the Matter of the Arbitration Act 1996

In an Arbitration Claim

Between:
Nomihold Securities Inc
Proposed Respondent
and
Mobile Telesystems Finance Sa
Proposed Appellant

MR S SALZEDO QC and MR A POLLEY (instructed by Simmons & Simmons LLP) appeared on behalf of the Proposed Respondent.

MR V FLYNN QC, SIR DANIEL BETHLEHEM KCMG QC, MR P KEY and MR T SMITH (instructed by Latham & Watkins LLP) appeared on behalf of the Proposed Appellant.

Judgment 1

LORD JUSTICE WARD
1

With a high level of reluctance we are persuaded, if only just persuaded, that there is an arguable case, as that term has to be understood, that is to say the arguments are not fanciful. They are arguments which in our view do give sufficient cause for this court to consider the issues. Whether we should give permission on the perjury is a matter of even greater doubt, but in for a penny in for a poke. You can have your few minutes, but do not be at all surprised if you have a thoroughly bad time on perjury. You may, in fact, wish to consider as advocates whether you wish to incur the wrath of the court even further than you will be doing by pursuing that point, but you can have your permission.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT