Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors v Urumov & Ors
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE EDER
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COMMERCIAL COURT
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Following a previous judgment on February 10, 2014, claimants sought committal proceedings against Mr. Georgy Urumov, who applied for the judge to recuse himself, arguing apparent bias due to the judge's prior rulings. After considering submissions and additional authorities, Mr. Justice Eder concluded with reluctance that he should recuse himself to avoid any perception of bias. The decision was based on serious allegations and previous authorities, although he found Grounds 1 and 2 raised by Mr. Urumov to be unpersuasive. The judge's recusal also impacted the scheduling of other related committal proceedings.
Judgment
Mr Justice Eder:
Introduction
Following the trial in these proceedings, I delivered my Judgment on 10 February 2014 (the “Judgment”). Thereafter, the claimants issued applications seeking permission to proceed with committal proceedings against a number of the individual defendants, including Mr Georgy Urumov. I have fixed a date for the hearing of those applications on 29 April 2014.
Meanwhile, Mr Urumov (who is now a litigant in person) applied (by email of 24 March 2014) that I should recuse myself in relation to the claimants’ application for permission to make a committal application against him and generally with regard to any committal proceedings against him. Thereafter, pursuant to my order, the claimants and the Mr Urumov both served written submissions (the “first round submissions”). Following receipt of such written submissions, I became aware of a decision of Andrew Smith J in Dar Al Arkan v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai [2014] EWHC 1055 (Comm) (“Dar”) which he delivered on 11 April 2014 and which I considered might be of relevance to the present recusal application. I therefore invited the parties to serve further written submissions which were duly served (the “second round submissions”).
The basis of Mr Urumov’s recusal application
In the first round submissions, Mr Urumov advances three main grounds in support of his recusal application which were, in summary, as follows.
Ground 1: Prejudgment ?
First, Mr Urumov says that this is a case of “apparent bias” because there is a “complete overlap” between the issues I determined in my Judgment and the claimants’ intended committal proceedings. In particular, Mr Urumov says that it is obvious and beyond any doubt that any “reasonable observer” who reads the Judgment will find that I have already formed my opinion on the future committal proceedings since I effectively “pre-judged” them. In that context, he refers to various authorities including: Livesey v. New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 , Bahai v. Rashidian [1985] 1 WLR 1337, Symphony Group v. Hodgson [1994] QB 179, Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 , In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700 , Sengupta v. Holmes [2002] EWCA Civ 1104 , Porter v. Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 , Lawal v. Northern Spirit [2003] HRLR 29 , Phillips v. Symes (No 3) [2005] 1 WLR 2986 , AWG Group Ltd v. Morrison [2006] 1 WLR 1163 , Helow v. Secretary of State