Post by nickd on Feb 18, 2012 8:59:43 GMT 1
Some question marks are being raised over whether the UK should “rent out” its legal system to companies and litigants who may have little link with the UK.
It seems the Russians are coming to London and bringing their costly legal disputes with them - at a time when the UK is saying we have to cut back on Court time and reduce litigation.
For some time on Mylegal we have been questioning how we could afford a brand spanking new law at at a cost of around £300 million. The Rolls Building on Fetter Lane is well equipped for dealing with technological challenges from all around the globe, as well as providing simultaneous translation - at a time when legal aid cut backs of £350 million are effectively bringing about the abolition of legal aid to anyone in the UK with a social welfare law dispute.
The Ministry of Justice should be asked some serious questions over how we ever afforded the Rolls Building in the first place. The building was commissioned under the previous government but last September it changed hands for £305 million pounds in a deal with insurance company Legal & General. It became properly operational after being opened by the Queen last year; - the official opening was very subdued, no doubt out of sheer embarrassment; - a public launch would almost certainly have had people asking how on earth we could afford to continue with such an expensive venture. There are also remains the enormous cost of the judiciary, leasing and huge amounts spent on IT. Creating world leading legal centres like this just doesn't come cheap.
I've looked through the Ministry of Justice accounts and can't see any reference to the amounts being spent of out of the justice budget; - surely questions now need to be asked as to how much was and still is being expended on all of this? Was this yet another publicly funded private initiative which has escaped full financial disclosure from the public accounts?
The Courts 'cause list' will show you a number of foreign disputes coming to London to get settled in our courts. The Financial Times recently ran an article on how lawyers 'welcomed the business; particularly where it involves the wealthy Russian super rich 'Obligarchs'. Attracting foreigners to UK law courts is being seen to be controversial at a time when millions of pounds is being shaved off the justice bill; - it's the poor who are suffering because they can't get legal aid to fight cases in Court.
The Financial Times say..
"For London’s top law firms, meanwhile, the glut of ex-Soviet disputes is bringing millions of pounds in fees for barristers and solicitors. Those involved say it is burnishing the reputation of the English legal system and London’s legal services industry.
Steven Philippsohn, a senior partner of PCB Litigation, says there is a “well-recognised belief that at least 60 per cent of the work of the [High Court’s] commercial and chancery divisions is Russian and eastern European-based, and that that figure is unlikely to go down”.
It makes a complete mockery over the Ministry of Justice's claims that we should reduce the amount of litigation in our law courts on the grounds of cost. This shows us that the law courts are up and running at any cost providing it brings some hope of wealth creation for city rich law firms who can't get enough legal business from abroad. It all poses serious questions over the Ministry of Justice budgets, the figures just don't add up. We're told £350 million needs to be cut from the legal aid budget as too many cases are being brought to court and yet we spend millions on attracting foreigners to the UK to settle their disputes.
Not so much from Russia with love then; - with plenty of litigation it would seem. Is this really why the Ministry of Justice needs to make cuts of £350 million in legal aid, to enable affluent foreigners to settle their cases in the UK whilst our own citizens are denied any access to justice?
Quotes from article...
“Barristers are falling over themselves to get involved in these cases,” said one litigation lawyer, “because they’re well paid, rarely settle and are factually and legally interesting.”
"Mukhtar Ablyazov fled alleged political persecution at home in Kazakhstan. Now, accused of siphoning $5bn from a Kazakh bank in an “epic” fraud and sentenced this week to 22 months in jail for contempt of court, he appears to be a fugitive from UK justice too.
Mr Ablyazov, the former chairman of BTA bank, is fighting nine lawsuits brought by the bank in London’s High Court, accusing him of “widespread misappropriation” of funds. He denies the allegations, yet to come to trial, saying they are politically motivated by the Kazakh president to eliminate him as a political opponent.
More
Hearings concluded recently in the $6.5bn dispute between Boris Berezovsky, the exiled Russian oligarch, and Roman Abramovich, Chelsea football club’s owner, a case estimated to have racked up £100m in legal fees. The court will in weeks begin hearing another blockbuster lawsuit, by Ukraine-born businessman Michael Cherney against one of the world’s richest men, Russia’s Oleg Deripaska.
They are part of an extraordinary wave of litigation that underlines the importance of London and the High Court as a forum for big-money disputes brought by the super wealthy from Russia and other former Soviet republics. The cases are shining a spotlight into the opaque world and lavish lives of the oligarch class.
For London’s top law firms, meanwhile, the glut of ex-Soviet disputes is bringing millions of pounds in fees for barristers and solicitors. Those involved say it is burnishing the reputation of the English legal system and London’s legal services industry.
Steven Philippsohn, a senior partner of PCB Litigation, says there is a “well-recognised belief that at least 60 per cent of the work of the [High Court’s] commercial and chancery divisions is Russian and eastern European-based, and that that figure is unlikely to go down”.
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/75e4e812-5978-11e1-abf1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1mggP5W1i