- Re-examining cross-examination in light of new evidence (Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank)
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Jon Felce, partner at PCB Litigation LLP, considers the latest reported judgment arising out of the long-running dispute between the Kazakh bank, JSC BTA Bank, and its former manager, Mukhtar Ablyazov. The Court of Appeal considered the impact of new evidence on a failed application by Mr Ablyazaov’s son-in-law, Mr Khrapunov. Mr Khrapunov had applied for the adjournment of his cross-examination in relation to a worldwide freezing order, alternatively for it to take place in Switzerland by video-link. However, his application at first instance had been rejected. Fresh evidence emerged concerning the prospect of Mr Khrapunov’s extradition from England if he attended the cross-examination, so the matter came before the Court of Appeal. Having granted permission to appeal in a rolled-up hearing, the Court of Appeal determined that the appeal should constitute a review (as opposed to a re-hearing) of the original decision and that the original decision should not be varied as a result of the new evidence.
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