Leading article: The price of oligarch justice

 

Friday 31 August 2012 20:18 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The courtroom battle between Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich was undoubtedly good news for the London lawyers on both sides who, win or lose, will have garnered some nice fat fees – a total in excess of £100m has been mentioned. But it is legitimate to wonder in what way the public interest has been served by the monopolising of four months of English court time – and a further five months for the judge to pronounce a decision – over a dispute between two foreigners squabbling over goings-on in the lawless Wild East of post-Soviet Russia.

In one sense it is flattering to the fairness and propriety of the English legal system that these billionaire oligarchs should have chosen to air their squabble here, though it was extraordinary that both were so happy publicly to reveal their involvement in such a lurid world of business and political skulduggery.

The talk now is of the matter going to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court which could cost the thick end of half a billion pounds end to end. Very little of that will find its way into the public purse in compensation for clogging up courts which could be resolving disputes with much more relevance to the UK. Courts have to accept jurisdiction before they hear such cases. The legal authorities should be considering whether scrutiny of this legal tourism was sufficiently rigorous in this case.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in