JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor

The stay application was refused because Mr Khrapunov did not demonstrate serious or irremediable prejudice justifying a stay; the risks he identified could be managed by adjusting the timetable for witness statements and by court supervision of disclosure. The amendment application was allowed because the new claims arose from evidence obtained after the action commenced, the amendment would not unfairly prejudice the defence or disrupt the trial, and the existence of parallel New York proceedings did not amount to oppression or abuse of process nor did it create an unacceptable risk of inconsistent judgments.

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 (conspiracy by Unlawful Means) / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications (stay and Amendment) at Second Management Conference
Outcome
Stay application refused (except for extension of witness statement deadline); amendment application allowed.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdictional Challenge, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Disclosure, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Stay of Proceedings Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdictional Challenge Multiplicity 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

First Defendant

Ilyas Khrapunov

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (conspiracy by Unlawful Means) / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications (stay and Amendment) at Second Management Conference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant a stay of proceedings pending Supreme Court appeal on jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether to permit amendment of particulars of claim to add new allegations involving asset dealings and money laundering
  3. 3 Whether multiplicity of proceedings (parallel New York litigation) justifies refusal of amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was refused because Mr Khrapunov did not demonstrate serious or irremediable prejudice justifying a stay; the risks he identified could be managed by adjusting the timetable for witness statements and by court supervision of disclosure. The amendment application was allowed because the new claims arose from evidence obtained after the action commenced, the amendment would not unfairly prejudice the defence or disrupt the trial, and the existence of parallel New York proceedings did not amount to oppression or abuse of process nor did it create an unacceptable risk of inconsistent judgments.

Court Disposition

Stay application refused (except for extension of witness statement deadline); amendment application allowed.

Orders

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