JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov

It would not be in the interests of justice or proportionate to require Mr. Ablyazov to surrender to custody, make an interim payment, provide security for costs, or make further disclosure as a condition of pursuing his appeal against the committal order. The right to challenge an order affecting personal liberty should not be subject to such conditions, as this would be a disproportionately severe response and would risk depriving the appellant of the opportunity to be heard.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: JSC BTA Bank; Defendant/appellant: Mukhtar Ablyazov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contempt of Court) / Application for Conditions on Right to Appeal Against Committal Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Be Heard, Committal for Contempt, Security for Costs, Interim Payments, Proportionality of Sanctions
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Human Rights Right to Be Heard Committal for Contempt Security for Costs Interim Payments Proportionality of Sanctions

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant/respondent

Mukhtar Ablyazov

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contempt of Court) / Application for Conditions on Right to Appeal Against Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contemnor can be required to surrender to custody or satisfy other conditions as a prerequisite to pursuing an appeal against a committal order
  2. 2 Whether imposing such conditions would be a disproportionate interference with the right of access to the court, especially where personal liberty is at stake

Ratio Decidendi

It would not be in the interests of justice or proportionate to require Mr. Ablyazov to surrender to custody, make an interim payment, provide security for costs, or make further disclosure as a condition of pursuing his appeal against the committal order. The right to challenge an order affecting personal liberty should not be subject to such conditions, as this would be a disproportionately severe response and would risk depriving the appellant of the opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed