Committal - Allegations of contempt made against defendant - Whether allegations to be heard before main trial

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov: Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court: Mr Justice Teare: 21 June 2011

The claimant bank brought a series of claims against the defendant.

In the course of litigation, in May 2011, 35 allegations of contempt of court were brought against the defendant in three different categories of contempt.

Those were subsequently reduced to 23 allegations. In June 2011, the claimant sought directions for the hearing of the contempt application.

It proposed that the allegations be heard in September/October 2011 over eight days.

The following issues arose: first, whether it would be appropriate to hear all the contempt allegations, and, if only some were considered, whether those not being considered ought to be reserved for future determination.

Second, when it would be appropriate to hear the contempt allegations.

The defendant submitted that the contempt allegations could not be heard until other elements of the trial and two other, separate, trials related to the present proceedings had been heard, which were due to commence in November 2012.

The complexity of the proceedings, together with the fact that the defendant spoke very little or no English, raised the possibility of the defendant not receiving a fair trial of the contempt application or the actions themselves.

The defendant submitted that a contempt hearing would prevent him from preparing properly for the main trial, and that given the assessment of his credibility involved and that the contempt applications raised issues which would arise in the main trial, it would be more appropriate to assess the contempt allegations at the trial of the actions.

Third, whether the ­contempt application should be heard in private.

The court ruled:

(1) In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to reduce the number of charges of contempt of court to three, one from each of the categories of contempt relied on. It would be for the claimant to choose which three would remain.

In the present case, the ­potential overlap between the ­contempt application and the main trial would not require that the ­contempt hearing be determined after the trial of the main action (see [9], [10] of the judgment).

(2) The particulars of the allegations needed to be properly set out. Allegations of wrongful dealing and failure to disclose an asset needed to state not only the asset in question but the manner in which the defendant was alleged to have beneficially held the asset.

All evidence would have to be clearly identified, especially that referring to the earlier witness statements (see [11] of the judgment).

(3) With regard to disclosure, nothing of substance would be achieved by reserving for future determination those allegations of contempt that had been made but not included within the three to be heard before the trial of the actions.

In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to declare that any future attempt by the claimant to bring future allegations of contempt for a hearing would be an abuse of process (see [15] and [17] of the judgment).

(4) The contempt hearing would be held in public, as would be the appropriate course where a contempt was alleged which could lead to the contemnor being imprisoned (see [19] of the judgment).

Stephen Smith QC and Tim Akkouh (instructed by Hogan Lovells International) for the claimant; Duncan Matthews QC, Nicholas Purnell QC, Thomas Grant and George Hayman (instructed by Stephenson Harwood) for the defendant.