JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko & Ors

The High Court's decision not to impose a custodial sentence was based on the incorrect assumption that Mr Kythreotis had purged his contempt. In fact, he had aggravated his contempt by providing false evidence and withholding documents. The seriousness of the breach, the deliberate deception, and continuing non-compliance warranted a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, with a minimum of nine months to be served as punishment for past non-compliance.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; Defendant: Roman Vladimirovich Solodchenko; Defendant: Paul Kythreotis; Defendant: Others (including BVI companies, further recipients, Eastbridge, Mr Shalabeyev, Mr Udovenko, Park Hill, Mr Ereshchenko, Mr Ablyazov)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Committal for Contempt
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Disclosure Obligations, Committal for Contempt, Sentencing for Contempt
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Disclosure Obligations Committal for Contempt Sentencing for Contempt

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

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Roman Vladimirovich Solodchenko

Defendant

Paul Kythreotis

Defendant

Others (including BVI companies, further recipients, Eastbridge, Mr Shalabeyev, Mr Udovenko, Park Hill, Mr Ereshchenko, Mr Ablyazov)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for civil contempt arising from non-compliance with the disclosure provisions of a freezing order?
  2. 2 Did the High Court err in not imposing a custodial sentence for contempt after finding non-compliance and subsequent false disclosure?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's decision not to impose a custodial sentence was based on the incorrect assumption that Mr Kythreotis had purged his contempt. In fact, he had aggravated his contempt by providing false evidence and withholding documents. The seriousness of the breach, the deliberate deception, and continuing non-compliance warranted a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, with a minimum of nine months to be served as punishment for past non-compliance.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court order discharged
  • Mr Kythreotis sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment for contempt of court, with a minimum of nine months to be served as punitive element