Berezovsky’s loss was to be expected, no chances to revoke the ruling, experts say

The judgment by the High Court of London to not exact 5,5 billion dollars from Roman Abramovich to the benefit of Boris Berezovsky was to be expected, and there are practically no chances to have the judgment revoked by a higher instance court. Such is the opinion of the Russian advocates - corporate dispute specialists questioned by RAPSI.

B.Berezovsky filed with the High Court of London a claim against R.Abramovich, demanding compensation for a number of assets of Russian companies, which had allegedly been sold for a lowered price. In particular, it concerns approximately 43% of “Sibneft” shares and a share of “RUSAL” company. Last Friday, the Court fully dismissed the claim.

The specialists note that the entire trial was based on a verbal dispute of the parties; the case participants submitted no documents to the court, so the judgment depended on the more persuasive one of the speeches.

The defenders also believe that B.Berezovsky has few chances to win the trial on the complaint regarding the today’s court judgment, since the British justice is constructed in such a way, that the first instance judgment, as a rule, stands.

Still, the experts are of the opinion that B.Berezovsky’s loss will not affect the interest of the Russian businessmen to the British justice, and that they will keep resorting to the Court of London.

<…>

RAPSI’s respondents noted that the court could do nothing but dismiss the claim, since there was only indirect proof – witnesses’ statements – and no direct evidence – documents.

Advocate Dmitry Mateev says: ”Berezovsky submitted no purely juridical proof of owning any shares. Therefore, in the absence of direct evidence, the only judgment that the court could take was to dismiss the claim. I would be greatly surprised at any other judgment”.

Alexander Bolomatov, Associated Partner of the Law Firm "YUST", agreed with the colleague and also pointed out that the court’s judgment was anything but unexpected.

A.Bolomatov notes: “The defense of Abramovich reasonably accentuated the criminal nature of the relationship from Berezovsky’s side. Abramovich gained an obvious advantage in the process by implementing the word “roof” (“krysha”) without adequate translation into the trial. In such circumstances, it would be quite cynical, if the court recognized any verbal agreements between Abramovich and Berezovsky”.

He reminded that when the court delivered the judgment, it alleged the absence of material proof of B.Berezovsky’s side, and R.Abramovich appeared more trustworthy in verbal statements.

The advocate believes: “The judgment also contains the conclusion regarding the necessity to take into consideration the provisions of the Russian law applicable to the relationship in question. This is comforting. Therefore, the Court has managed, dealing with such a complex case, to dismiss Beresovsky’s claim, and also to hint at the possibility to resolve similar cases in other ways in the future. Such position allows England to maintain the status of a country, whose judicial system is highly trusted”.

<…>

The full version of the publication is available here.