JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

The ex parte order should be set aside due to serious failures by the First Defendant to disclose material matters, but the order will be continued in a modified form because the circumstances justify its continuation to protect the administration of justice and the interests at stake.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application (set Aside Ex Parte Order) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order
Outcome
Order continued in modified form
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Applications, Freezing Orders, Receivership, Private Hearings, Disclosure Obligations

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application (set Aside Ex Parte Order) / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte order should be set aside for lack of notice, non-disclosure, and misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the order should be continued in modified form despite procedural failings

Ratio Decidendi

The ex parte order should be set aside due to serious failures by the First Defendant to disclose material matters, but the order will be continued in a modified form because the circumstances justify its continuation to protect the administration of justice and the interests at stake.

Court Disposition

Order continued in modified form

Orders

  • The ex parte order is set aside but continued in a modified form as suggested by the Claimant and amended by the court.
  • The parties are to prepare an agreed order reflecting the modifications.