Russian oligarch challenges jurisdiction ruling
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 Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska has challenged a court ruling that a £2bn-plus lawsuit launched against him by a former friend should be tried in England rather than Russia.
A year ago, a High Court judge in London held that the claimant, Michael Chernoy, was entitled to a hearing in England – to ensure he received a fair trial and to protect him from the risk of "assassination or arrest on trumped-up charges".
Yesterday, Mr Deripaska's lawyers argued in the Court of Appeal that the case should be heard in Russia and that the earlier jurisdictional judgment was wrong as it effectively amounted to an allegation that the Russian Federation was unable to exercise its sovereignty by administering justice.
Ali Malek QC, for Mr Deripaska, told Lords Justices Waller and Moore-Bick and Sir John Chadwick that the lawsuit had "absolutely nothing to do with this country".
The governing law of the disputed contract was Russian law, large parts of it were in the Russian language and the events leading up to it all took place in Russia.
The High Court judge, Mr Justice Christopher Clarke, had no grounds for finding that Mr Chernoy might be under threat in Russia. There was no evidence that he was a political opponent of the regime in Moscow. In any event, there was no question of the Russian state exercising improper influence over a litigant for political reasons.
"There is no evidence that Mr Deripaska has ever received support from the Russian government that involves improper government interference," said Mr Malek.
He said Mr Deripaska had been treated like any other litigant – his companies had in fact lost 16 recent cases.
"It isn't true that oligarchs always win in the Russian courts," added Mr Malek.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments