JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

When deciding whether to adjourn a contempt hearing, the court must balance the need for prompt enforcement with the defendant’s minimum right under European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights Article 6 to have adequate time to prepare the defence. Adequacy depends on the issues, evidence, preparation already undertaken, available legal assistance and the realistic work remaining. A change of solicitors shortly before trial does not ordinarily justify an adjournment, particularly where the change is unexplained and disrupts existing preparations. Uncertainty about the length of the hearing, without a concrete indication that the listed period is insufficient, is also inadequate. The application was therefore refused and the existing timetable maintained.

The claimant sought to commit the defendant for contempt arising from alleged breaches of a freezing order. The court had restricted the committal hearing to three allegations and directed service of the defendant’s evidence by 30 September 2011, with a two-week trial commencing on 28 November 2011.

The defendant applied to adjourn, relying on the claimant’s evidence and disclosure, other litigation and business burdens, the need for further preparation and a recent change of solicitors. The central issue was whether extending time for service of evidence to 14 October 2011 would still give the defendant adequate time to prepare his defence.

1. Application refused. The committal hearing was retained for 28 November 2011 and the defendant’s evidence deadline was extended to 14 October 2011.
2. A contempt application may properly be brought to put pressure on compliance with a freezing order, and it will usually be appropriate to determine such an application promptly. That consideration must be balanced against the defendant’s minimum right under Article 6, paragraph 3, of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights to adequate time to prepare the defence.
3. The defendant had been investigating the evidence for several months. The claimant’s detailed pleading, which identified the allegations, supporting matters and relied-on evidence, materially simplified preparation. The volume of documents, other litigation commitments, and external business difficulties did not prevent adequate preparation, particularly given the assistance available to the defendant.
4. The recent change of solicitors was not a sufficient reason for adjournment. The defendant had not adequately explained why experienced solicitors were replaced while preparations were under way. The resulting difficulty in familiarising new solicitors with the litigation was consequently not treated as a sufficient basis for delay.
5. The evidence did not establish that four weeks were required. Although the precise defence and witness evidence created some uncertainty, the defendant had not indicated that additional witnesses or a broader beneficial-ownership case would be advanced. The risk that two weeks might prove insufficient did not justify vacating the fixture.