The High Court has compelled a prominent City litigation firm to disclose the origin of a report suspected to be forged, part of an arbitration involving Russian oligarchs.
In an uncommon legal manoeuvre, Mr Justice Calver has ordered the City law firm, Quinn Emanuel (QE), to reveal the name of the business intelligence consultancy responsible for providing the contentious Glavstroy report. This decision constitutes a Norwich Pharmacal order, aimed at extracting crucial information from an uninvolved party in a legal dispute. The order surfaced as Mr Justice Calver adjudicated on a claim linked to a discontinued arbitration under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The claimants had asserted that the arbitration award should have been $300 million more than determined.
The legal proceedings resulted from a dissolved joint venture between Vladimir Chernukhin’s company, Navigator Equities, and Oleg Deripaska’s Filatona Trading. In the arbitration, the Deripaska parties were to purchase the Chernukhin interest for $95 million. Subsequently, allegations arose against the Deripaska group, accusing them of suppressing the report, which purportedly would have increased the award to $395 million.
Despite not knowing the true source of the Glavstroy report, QE did not conduct immediate inquiries to verify its authenticity when questions emerged from the opposing legal counsel, RPC. Doubts were raised as the report, allegedly compiled in 2016, referred to a document from 2018, casting suspicion on its legitimacy.
Mr Justice Calver highlighted that QE had inadvertently enabled the purported misconduct by relying on the report without verifying its origins when prompted by RPC’s inquiries. QE had declined to disclose the consultancy’s identity, citing safety concerns for the source, given the sensitive nature of the dispute involving high-profile clients.
Further complications arose when Clifford Chance, also representing the Chernukhin parties, withdrew the section 68 claim three months after filing, consenting to indemnity costs without admissions. This has added weight to the suspicion that the report is indeed a forgery. Mr Justice Calver noted the lack of evidence presented by QE or Clifford Chance to contest the indicia of fraud associated with the report.
In his judgement, Calver J underscored the essential criteria for Norwich Pharmacal relief were satisfied, affirming that it was strongly arguable that the Glavstroy report was fraudulent. Despite arguments suggesting only parts of the document were fabricated, the lack of rebuttal from QE and Clifford Chance lent credence to the claims of forgery.
This ruling highlights the critical importance of thorough due diligence in legal proceedings, especially in high-stakes international arbitrations. Mr Justice Calver emphasised that the disclosure order aligns with public interest, facilitating the Deripaska parties’ pursuit of their legal rights and potentially preventing recurrences of misconduct in similar contexts.
The High Court’s decision to order the disclosure of the consultancy’s identity aims to rectify the potential wrongdoing surrounding the Glavstroy report. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining integrity within legal processes, especially when international and high-value disputes are involved.
