In a recent article "The Aluminium Wars - RUSAL and New Russian Economic Power" I looked at the rise of RUSAL and recently saw a court case where Michael Cherney a major figure in the Aluminium wars claims 20% of RUSAL - but will he get it?
Michael Cherney runs the Cherney Foundation from Israel where he now resides after leaving Russia and has promised $600 million to charity, should he win in court the money he feels is owed to him by RUSAL Owner Oleg Deripaksa.
The court case however may not get very far and the reason for this is that neither Michael Cherney or Oleg Deripaska, are UK residents and the dispute is really for the Russian courts, in the country where the dispute originates.
People often try and sue in London and a similar example is, the recent attempt by The Iranian Ministry of Defence, to sue Mr. al-Zayat and his aircraft leasing business FAZ Aviation in London's High Court.
The Iranians argument was that since FAZ Aviation's "principal place of business" was in the UK at the time the claim was issued a UK court was an appropriate place to settle the claim.
Mr. Justice Langley however thought differently and dismissed the Iranian's case.
He ruled that FAZ Aviation was incorporated in Cyprus and has its registered office in Nicosia. It did not in the judges view, conduct sufficient business in London at the time of the claim for the UK to be an appropriate place to settle the dispute. The UK courts, therefore had no jurisdiction to help settle the claim.
Will the judge rule the same way in the Michael Cherney V Oleg Deripaska case?
It seems that he is already thinking along these lines and says of Michael Cherney:
"And establish, the burden being upon him, that England was the appropriate forum for the determination of the claim."
The similarities are obvious.
RUSAL's Principle place of business is not in the UK, Oleg Deripaska and Michael Cherney are also not residents of the UK. The dispute has nothing to do with the UK - so what is the argument that could be put forward to say that the UK is a suitable jurisdiction to hear the case?
The UK courts are busy enough, without hearing cases from all over the world, that simply overwork an already stretched legal system. Most people in UK do not want to see cases fought that really have nothing to do with the country and provide no benefit to the UK.
So why doesn't Michael Cherney wish to have the case heard in Russia?
This is a throwback to the days when the aluminum wars raged and his partnership with Deripaska emerged. Michael Cherney feels that there are powerful figures in Russia who are biased against him and it will be hard for an unbiased trial, thats a fair enough view - but is it up to the UK legal system to sort out?
Cherney claims, that he has considerable of documentation which prove his association with Deripaska and that he is owed money - Deripaska denies the claim. Whether Michael Cherney is owed money or not, is not the issue - this is really a question of should the UK settle the dispute?
Michael Cherney has already pledged $600 million of his winnings to various charities to be distributed via the Michael Cherney foundation which shows confidence - but will the case get into the UK courts at all?
London may have its fair share of Russian money and oligarchs living in it, but it is surley not in the market to become the world court. It is unlikely that the UK Courts will start settling disputes from across the world - as both the Iranian government have discovered and Michael Cherney could as well.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
This article was written by Sonia Kristina, a freelance author writing on economic and political stories that affect the global economy.
|
