Navigator Equities Ltd & Anor. v Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska

Where a fair trial cannot take place, the court should generally adjourn the hearing. Inconvenience to the opposing party or other court users is ordinarily not a sufficient countervailing factor. The court must assess fairness on the evidence, including the practical ability of legal representatives to prepare properly. A short, controlled delay will ordinarily favour an adjournment where there is no uncompensatable prejudice and the issues are not time-critical. The analysis remains fact-sensitive, particularly where sanctions or funding restrictions have disrupted legal representation.

The claimants sought to proceed with a contempt trial against the defendant. Shortly before the listed hearing, sanctions prevented payment to the defendant’s solicitors and counsel had returned their briefs. The defendant applied for an adjournment, arguing that he could not obtain properly prepared legal representation in time for a fair trial.

The claimants argued that the existing solicitors remained obliged to act, that alternative or publicly funded counsel could be instructed, and that the application formed part of a history of delay. The central issue was whether a fair trial was possible in the existing circumstances and, if not, whether discretionary considerations justified refusing an adjournment.

1. Adjournment granted. The trial was adjourned because a fair trial was not possible in May 2022.
2. The solicitors remained bound to act while on the record, but that did not determine whether they were entitled to come off the record. Prima facie, the defendant’s inability to pay professional fees provided good cause for an application to come off the record.
3. The decisive consideration was counsel. Counsel had returned their briefs and had not prepared the hearing. Even if the solicitors remained obliged to act, the defendant could not properly be represented without counsel. A replacement team could not acquire sufficient command of the complex factual and legal material within the available time.
4. The availability of legal aid did not cure the difficulty. A late-appointed team, including legal aid counsel, could not prepare adequately for a complex and hard-fought contempt trial. The defendant had no absolute right to choose counsel, but fairness required properly prepared representation.
5. The court approached the history of delay sceptically, but the evidence did not establish that the application was merely tactical. The sanctions and the resulting payment problem were undisputed. The possibility of an OFSI licence, contemplated by schedule 5, section 3 of the Counter-Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations, made a short adjournment a controlled and realistic course.
6. Applying Bilta, fairness to both parties was required, but inconvenience to the claimants or other court users was not ordinarily a countervailing reason. Uncompensatable injustice could justify refusal, but no material prejudice was shown. Costs could be compensated, and the contempt issues were not time-critical.
7. The decision was fact-sensitive. Maroil v Cally did not govern the result because the circumstances, including the length and nature of the hearing, materially differed.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.