In a significant legal development, the High Court has compelled a prominent City litigation firm to disclose the origins of a potentially forged report.
- The case involves a contentious arbitration dispute between Russian oligarchs, centering on an allegedly fraudulent document.
- Mr Justice Calver issued a Norwich Pharmacal order against the law firm to uncover the consultancy behind the ‘Glavstroy report’.
- The report in question was intended to support a claim of substantial financial discrepancies in an arbitration award.
- Evidence suggests the report is a forgery, raising serious questions about its use in legal proceedings.
In a recent directive, the High Court has mandated a leading City litigation firm to disclose the source of a report alleged to be forged, which was involved in an arbitration dispute among Russian oligarchs. This unusual move by Mr Justice Calver is marked by the issuance of a Norwich Pharmacal order demanding that law firm Quinn Emanuel identify the consultancy responsible for the ‘Glavstroy report’. This document formed the basis of a claim under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which sought to augment an arbitration award by $300m.
Justice Calver indicated that while evidence pointed to the report being a forgery, he refrained from concluding that Quinn Emanuel was knowingly facilitating potential misconduct when the section 68 proceedings were initiated. Nevertheless, the firm was criticized for not making timely inquiries to verify the report’s authenticity once concerns were raised by the opposing party.
The court was informed that Quinn Emanuel, representing Vladimir Chernukhin and Navigator Equities against Oleg Deripaska and Filatona Trading, received the report through a consultancy engaged for business intelligence. Knowing the consultancy could permit the claimants to trace the report’s ultimate origin. The legal conflict originated from a joint venture dissolution, prompting an arbitration where the Chernukhin parties were awarded $95m, which they later disputed, claiming the award should have been $395m based on the suppressed report.
RPC, representing the Deripaska parties, highlighted inconsistencies in the Glavstroy report, including references to a 2018 document within a purported 2016 report. Quinn Emanuel and Clifford Chance, the solicitors on record for the Chernukhin parties, failed to address these concerns but expressed no doubts about the report’s genuineness. However, safety concerns for the source led Quinn Emanuel to withhold the consultancy’s identity.
Despite the proceedings’ initial vigor, Clifford Chance eventually withdrew and agreed to indemnity costs for the discontinuation. Justice Calver ruled that the conditions for Norwich Pharmacal relief were satisfied, acknowledging the forgery allegations as credible. He emphasized that neither law firm had contested the fraud indicators, reflecting a lack of evidence of the report’s authenticity. Calver noted the improbability of the Chernukhin parties withdrawing and incurring costs without genuine concerns about the report’s fabrication.
Justice Calver dismissed the argument of privilege regarding the consultancy’s identity, asserting that the revelations would not compromise any privileged communications or strategy. He underlined the significant public interest in enabling the Deripaska parties to uphold their legal rights, suggesting the disclosure might deter similar misconduct, especially if the Glavstroy report’s content originated from internal Deripaska sources.
In conclusion, the judge deemed the order for disclosure a necessary step in addressing the misconduct and pursuing legal rectification. The decision underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the broader implications for legal transparency and accountability.
The High Court’s ruling to disclose the consultancy’s identity underscores the importance of legal accountability and transparency.
