Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank

Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed without good reason to apply in time for variation of the cross-examination order, and the High Court was entitled to require attendance in England for effective enforcement of the freezing order. The new evidence of Ukrainian criminal proceedings increased the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ilyas Khrapunov; Respondent: JSC BTA Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Cross Examination and Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Cross Examination, Disclosure of Assets, Extradition Risk, Case Management, Video Link Evidence, Enforcement of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law International Law Freezing Orders Cross Examination Disclosure of Assets Extradition Risk Case Management +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ilyas Khrapunov

Appellant

JSC BTA Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision on Cross Examination and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be cross-examined in England or via video-link from Switzerland due to extradition risk
  2. 2 Whether the High Court's refusal to vary the cross-examination order was correct
  3. 3 Whether new evidence regarding Ukrainian criminal proceedings justifies varying the order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed without good reason to apply in time for variation of the cross-examination order, and the High Court was entitled to require attendance in England for effective enforcement of the freezing order. The new evidence of Ukrainian criminal proceedings increased the risk of extradition but did not justify varying the order, as cross-examination in Switzerland would not be as effective or enforceable. The public interest in enforcing court orders and the efficacy of the freezing order outweighed the appellant's claimed risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against the High Court's decision and costs order dismissed
  • Application to vary the cross-examination order to allow video-link from Switzerland dismissed