Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 477 (21 March 2002)

Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 477 (21 March 2002)

The judge failed to ask whether Mr Moussavi had an effective opportunity to apply for public funding; the right to legal aid must be respected and a defendant may reasonably refuse opponent-funded representation. The refusal to adjourn was a misdirection and discretion must be set aside.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 477
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Berry Trade Limited (Bermuda); Claimant/respondent: Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Kaveh Moussavi; Defendant/appellant: Khadijeh Saebi; Defendant/appellant: Farzaneh Pirouz-Moussavi; Defendant/appellant: Berry Trade Limited (Isle of Man); Defendant/appellant: Eastway Petroleum Limited; Defendant/appellant: Silverstream Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Committal Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Legal Representation, Funding of Defence, Fair Trial, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Legal Aid Human Rights Adjournment Legal Representation Funding of Defence Fair Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Berry Trade Limited (Bermuda)

Claimant/respondent

Vitol Energy (Bermuda) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Kaveh Moussavi

Defendant/appellant

Khadijeh Saebi

Defendant/appellant

Farzaneh Pirouz-Moussavi

Defendant/appellant

Berry Trade Limited (Isle of Man)

Defendant/appellant

Eastway Petroleum Limited

Defendant/appellant

Silverstream Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Division) / Appeal Against Refusal to Adjourn Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant facing committal can reasonably refuse representation funded by the opposing party
  2. 2 Whether the court should adjourn proceedings to allow application for public funding
  3. 3 Professional propriety of solicitors and counsel acting with opponent-funded fees

Ratio Decidendi

The judge failed to ask whether Mr Moussavi had an effective opportunity to apply for public funding; the right to legal aid must be respected and a defendant may reasonably refuse opponent-funded representation. The refusal to adjourn was a misdirection and discretion must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order set aside.

Orders

  • Hearing of committal application adjourned to 20-23 May 2002.
  • Estimate of 4 days for hearing (including one day's prereading).