JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2017] EWHC 2702 (Comm) (06 November 2017)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2017] EWHC 2702 (Comm) (06 November 2017)

The stay application was refused because Mr Khrapunov failed to demonstrate serious prejudice justifying a stay; the risks cited could be managed by the court and did not outweigh the Bank's interest in progressing its claim. The amendment application was granted because the new claims arose from evidence only recently obtained, would not unfairly prejudice the defendants, and the existence of parallel US proceedings did not make the amendment oppressive or abusive. The risk of inconsistent judgments or oppression was not sufficient to refuse permission to amend.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2702 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; First Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov; Second Defendant: Ilyas Khrapunov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Second Management Conference; Applications for Stay and for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Stay application refused; amendment application granted (with minor modification); timetable for service of witness statements extended.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdictional Challenge, Multiplicities of Proceedings, Disclosure, Worldwide Freezing Order (wfo)
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Stay of Proceedings Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdictional Challenge Multiplicities of Proceedings Disclosure +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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Ilyas Khrapunov

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Second Management Conference; Applications for Stay and for Permission to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending a Supreme Court appeal on jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether to permit the claimant to amend its particulars of claim to add further allegations and claims
  3. 3 Whether multiplicity of proceedings (parallel claims in New York and England) is oppressive or justifies refusal of amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was refused because Mr Khrapunov failed to demonstrate serious prejudice justifying a stay; the risks cited could be managed by the court and did not outweigh the Bank's interest in progressing its claim. The amendment application was granted because the new claims arose from evidence only recently obtained, would not unfairly prejudice the defendants, and the existence of parallel US proceedings did not make the amendment oppressive or abusive. The risk of inconsistent judgments or oppression was not sufficient to refuse permission to amend.

Court Disposition

Stay application refused; amendment application granted (with minor modification); timetable for service of witness statements extended.

Orders

  • Witness statements of fact and hearsay notices to be exchanged by 4.30pm on 30 June 2018 (instead of 30 April 2018)
  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim as proposed, subject to minor change