- Adjournment of fraud hearing due to imprisonment of defendant (Akcine Bendrove Bankas Snoras v Antonov)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned a €492m fraud claim commenced in 2012, and the three-day hearing of the claimant’s summary judgment application in October 2019. On the eve of the hearing the first defendant’s wife sought an adjournment due to her husband’s imprisonment in Russia. Although the court was critical of the defendant’s conduct of the proceedings thus far (and recognised that his presence in Russia appeared to be the result of fleeing the English court’s jurisdiction following an order for extradition to Lithuania), the court allowed the adjournment application. The judgment provides some interesting analysis of the court’s discretion to proceed in the absence of a defendant and the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Written by Rachel Turner, senior associate, at PCB Litigation LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial