header-logo header-logo

30 November 2012 / Louis Flannery KC
Issue: 7540 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Rich pickings (Pt II)

Louis Flannery concludes his analysis of Berezovsky v Abramovich

Berezovsky’s claims were brought in a variety of commercial court and chancery division proceedings, all started over a two-year period from mid-2007 to mid-2009. The claim forms were famously served on Abramovich outside a Hermès store in Chelsea. The claims were eventually consolidated, and the trial of the main claims was to be heard before Mrs Justice Gloster. Appearing for Berezovsky were an array of counsel (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard), led by Laurie Rabinowitz QC, whose job it was to cross-examine Abramovich. On the other side were several teams. Jonathan Sumption QC (now a Supreme Court judge) led the battle for Abramovich, instructed by Skadden Arps.

During the course of the actions, Berezovsky’s case shifted consistently, and was still being amended right up to the start of the trial. Although late amendments are fairly common, the fundamental allegations usually remain consistent throughout. That was not the case here. However, that has to be seen in the context of pleadings, witness statements and skeleton arguments

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll