The Rolls Building – now home to the Commercial Court and Chancery Division of London’s High Court in – still has a whiff of fresh paint about it, having only opened last year. But in addition to being squeaky new, from its earliest days of business, visitors to the court could not but help hearing many voices speaking Russian.
That apparent linguistic quirk was not just caused by the hearing involving the claims of businessman Boris Berezovsky’s against Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich. Other substantial cases emanating from Russia – such as claims brought by VTB Capital (a London subsidiary of one of Russia’s largest banks) against Marshall Capital Group (one of Russia’s largest investment fund groups) and its owner Konstantin Malofeev – were also being heard.
Then there are the cases involving other countries from the former Soviet Union (CIS), such as the multi-billion dollar action brought by BTA Bank against Mukhtar Ablyazov and others, which have resulted in numerous hearings.

Independent judges

Why do Russian, and other Russian-speaking litigants, bring so many substantial cases to the London courts? Several factors are involved.
First, many parties elect to include in commercial contracts dispute resolution clauses that provide for London’s High Court to have jurisdiction or for arbitration in London where the courts have a supervisory role to play. However, that begs the question as to why London is chosen as the venue for dispute resolution?
An independent judiciary that has substantial experience of trying commercial disputes is one major reason. Many believe the Russian judiciary is not free from the influence of politicians or corruption and work is still needed to change those perceptions. The English judiciary, however, is not viewed in the same way.
English law has also developed over hundreds of years, recognising throughout that evolutionary process the need for commercial certainty while striving to ensure a just outcome. This it has done through the system of binding precedent that enables a degree of consistency and, with it, predictability in the outcome of cases.
Therefore, parties to contracts often choose English to be the governing law, and where better to have a claim under English law heard than by an English court? The courts of the jurisdiction of the chosen law are generally best suited to determine issues arising under that law.
That is not to say that the English courts will not apply foreign law.
Several professors of Russian law – as well as those of Ukrainian and Kazakh law – have been providing reports and oral evidence on their law for the purposes of English High Court proceedings in recent years. The case of Fiona Trust v Privalov is a prime example of a trial where the Judge first had to determine the applicable law to various claims, and then had to determine – with the benefit of expert evidence – the result of some of those claims according to Russian law.
But the advantages of English law go beyond mere commercial certainty. Weapons have been developed to ensure that its judgments are not rendered worthless by the dissipation of assets. There are orders that can be obtained to trace and freeze assets and to compel disclosure of further assets, with cross-examination if such disclosure is unsatisfactory and, ultimately, imprisonment for contempt if proper disclosure of assets is not given.
Ancillary freezing orders can be obtained in other jurisdictions, including the usual jurisdictions where assets (or companies holding assets) are located, such as the British Virgin Islands, Cayman, Jersey and Cyprus.
With the development of such weapons come the experienced, specialist lawyers who deal not only in large-scale commercial disputes, but also manage cases where there is a need to use the full range of the court’s weapons, both in England and off shore. In the VTB case, freezing orders were obtained and served simultaneously in England, BVI, Cayman and Cyprus – each with a limit of $200 million.
In a dispute between Russian and Kazakh parties that settled last year – Jenington v Assaubayev – simultaneous freezing orders were again obtained and served with a limit of $500m in England, Jersey, Guernsey and BVI, together with search orders at three London addresses and third-party disclosure orders against various banks to locate assets. And in that case, the court ordered cross-examination of the principal defendants.

Lifestyle and language

There is also the question of the English language. When parties from Russia and other jurisdictions are deciding on how their disputes should be resolved, use of the international language of business is convenient. Similarly England is a relatively convenient geographic location for dispute resolution when the contracting parties are from Russia and the West.
The geography, language and lifestyle attract a number of people from Russia and the CIS to live in the UK. Cases can be brought in England not only because of choice of jurisdiction clauses, but also because it is where the defendants are to be found. That was the position as regards Mr Ablyazov, as well as the Assaubayevs. 
Therefore, it is the convergence of geography, language, a tried and trusted law and judiciary, as well as specialist lawyers who can employ effectively the weapons that English law has to offer that currently makes England an attractive place for Russian litigants.

 Anthony Riem and Trevor Mascarenhas are partners at London-based specialist law firm PCB Litigation