JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

The court refused the application because the contact details (Conference Call Facility and Email Facility) were provided in confidence for the purpose of seeking and receiving legal advice and are protected by legal professional privilege. Ordering disclosure would not be just and convenient as it would foreseeably deprive the First Defendant of access to legal advice from his solicitors, violating his fundamental rights.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; Defendants: Mukhtar Ablyazov and others; Respondent: Addleshaw Goddard LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Application (ancillary Disclosure Order) / Ruling on Application for Disclosure of Contact Details by Respondent Solicitors
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure Orders, Legal Professional Privilege, Access to Legal Advice, Enforcement of Court Orders, Jurisdiction Under Section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981
Civil Procedure Legal Professional Privilege Contempt of Court Disclosure Orders Access to Legal Advice Enforcement of Court Orders Jurisdiction Under Section 37 Senior Courts Act 1981

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov and others

Defendants

Addleshaw Goddard LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Application (ancillary Disclosure Order) / Ruling on Application for Disclosure of Contact Details by Respondent Solicitors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order disclosure of contact details used for confidential solicitor-client communications
  2. 2 Whether such contact details are protected by legal professional privilege
  3. 3 Whether it is just and convenient to make the order sought, considering the right of access to legal advice

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application because the contact details (Conference Call Facility and Email Facility) were provided in confidence for the purpose of seeking and receiving legal advice and are protected by legal professional privilege. Ordering disclosure would not be just and convenient as it would foreseeably deprive the First Defendant of access to legal advice from his solicitors, violating his fundamental rights.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed