London: The London High Court on Friday delivered its reserved judgment in the in respect of the Claimant Sergei Polonskiy’s application to the court to stay the trial of these proceedings (which has been fixed by the court to take place in around May 2017). The details of this case were published earlier in The Independent.
Sergei Polonskiy, the Russian oligarch who had until his expulsion by authorities in May 2015 been living on a remote island in Cambodia, is at present detained in a Russian jail awaiting trial on charges of embezzling investors’ money relating to two large real estate projects in Moscow known as ‘Kutuzovskaya Mile’ and ‘Rublevskaya Riviera’.
The London court dismissed Polonskiy’s stay application which was premised on allegations that a detainee’s rights to confidential communications with his legal advisors are not respected in Russia, and that Russian prosecutors and investigators had shared Polonskiy’s privileged documents and information with the Second Defendant, Dr Alexander Dobrovinsky, who is recognised as one of the leading “golden” lawyers in Moscow.
Mr Gabriel Moss QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the Chancery Division of the High Court, found there to be no concrete evidence that Dr Dobrovinsky had been provided with privileged documents, or that conditions in the Russian detention facility presented any real as opposed to a notional risk of injustice to Polonskiy in the conduct of his claim in London.
In dismissing the stay application, the Court found the evidence tendered on Mr Polonskiy’s behalf about the alleged possession by Dr Dobrovinsky of privileged documents to be unsatisfactory, unreliable and “lacking in credibility”. In particular, two witnesses appeared to the judge to be able to “persuade themselves of impossible things” which reflected the “febrile approach” in which Polonskiy’s application had been conducted, including allegations subsequently “clearly demonstrated to be false” that Dr Dobrovinsky had advance knowledge of, and played a role in, Polonskiy’s alleged “kidnapping and rendition” from Cambodia to Russia.
“This was a fiercely contested application by a Claimant to stay (for his convenience) the trial of very serious claims brought in London against reputable legal professionals. The application included very serious allegations of wrongdoing, none of which were found to have any merit. This decision demonstrates that English judges examine applications critically and will not accept evidence, even when coming from lawyers, which does not meet the requisite standards of reliability and credibility necessary to do justice between the parties. This dispassionate and critical approach reinforces London’s reputation as a leading venue for the resolution of international disputes,” Senior Partner Sarosh Zaiwalla, said.
