Sumption's Supreme Court elevation delayed by oligarch case
Brick Court silk Jonathan Sumption QC is to act as lead counsel for Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich in his legal showdown with rival Boris Berezovsky, delaying his expected appointment to the Supreme Court.
Jonathan Sumption
The silk’s role on the case had looked in doubt because of mounting speculation that he is about to be elevated to the Supreme Court. Both his chambers and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm the appointment.
While the position on the Supreme Court bench will be vacant from May, it is understood that any appointment will be delayed to enable Sumption to appear for the oligarch during a 12-week trial that is due to start in October.
Brick Court has vehemently denied speculation that Sumption collected a £10m brief fee for committing to the matter, with the figure thought to be closer to £3m. Berezovsky’s legal team is working on a partial conditional fee arrangement.
Sumption’s Brick Court colleague Helen Davies QC informed the court during a case management hearing concerning the matter last month that Sumption had been retained along with newly made-up Brick Court silk Danny Jowell.
Any appointment to the Supreme Court will cause ripples in the Berezovsky camp, which is being represented by Addleshaw Goddard partners John Kelleher and Mark Hastings, who have instructed One Essex Court’s Laurence Rabinowitz QC.
A source close to the case said: “Davies confirmed at the hearing that Sumption’s doing the trial. Any appointment to the Supreme Court will have to deferred.
“It’s all a bit unsatisfactory really. Will the judge in the Berezovsky trial be comfortable knowing the advocate before them is likely to be in the Supreme Court?”
The Berezovsky v Abramovich matter is set to be one of the biggest and most bitterly fought trials of the year.
At the heart of Berezovsky’s claims are allegations that Abramovich coerced him into selling his 21.5 per cent share in Russian oil company Sibneft at a significantly reduced price.
In February, the Court of Appeal (CoA) rejected a second strike-out bid put forward by the Abramovich legal team (23 February 2011).
Lord Justice Laws said the CoA found itself in “entire agreement” with Mr Justice Coleman’s first instance judgment, which was handed down in March last year (31 March 2010).
Readers' comments (10)
Anonymous | 6-Apr-2011 1:47 pm
let's hope he is more successful than Torres
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Apr-2011 2:26 pm
Assuming the above is accurate (ie Sumption is to be appointed to the SC, but is insisting on delaying the appointment actually taking effect so that he has the chance to cream off a stupendously large brief fee - and refreshers too, of course), this is a disgraceful state of affairs. Mr Sumption either wants to be a judge or he does not. If he does, then he should be expected to front up in May when Lawrence Collins retires and the vacancy arises. Why should the Supreme Court be short-handed for nine months for his convenience and financial benefit?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Apr-2011 3:26 pm
I agree with "Anonymous @ 2:26". If this story is true then it is a complete disgrace that the deep pockets of Mr Abromovich dictate when appointments are made to the highest court in the land.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Apr-2011 9:58 am
Anonymous@3:26
I have little time for Abramovich, but I doubt this situation (assuming it exists) is his fault. Judging by his absence from the earlier, very heavily constested interlocutory hearings in these proceedings (when Andrew Popplewell QC was leading), it appears as if Sumption may be a comparative latecomer to the case. I doubt this is a case of Abramovich throwing toys from metaphorical prams. Even if it were, Sumption would be entitled to say, six months out from a trial: sorry, mate, I cannot do your trial because I am becoming a judge, you'll have to find someone else. This would not breach the cab rank rule or any other provision of the Bar Code of Conduct. The ball is squarely in Sumption's court (so to speak). If the original story is correct, what we have here is Sumption choosing to try and delay his appointment so that he can receive a massive fee while leaving the Supreme Court short for nine months. That is way out of order and it is astonishing that, assuming the story is correct, the Court appears to have acquiesced.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Apr-2011 3:30 pm
There is an interesting piece by Joshua Rozenberg on this, in Standpoint Magazine:
http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/3847
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eh-thicks | 7-Apr-2011 3:58 pm
Rule 610(c) of the Bar Code of Conduct folks.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Apr-2011 4:53 pm
Eh thicks
If you think rule 610(c) applies here, then no barrister is likely to be able to accept a full-time judicial appointment without breaching it. The clerk of every barrister who is going to the bench ends up having to ring up solicitors to tell them Mr or Miss X is no longer available in Y months time. It happens all the time and no breach of rule 610(c) arises.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Apr-2011 5:59 pm
Given that Sumption doesn't tend to lose very often and the merits of B's case are such that it has already been subjected to a couple of (albeit unsuccessful) strike outs, I'm not sure I'd fancy being on Addleshaw's CFA very much - unless the uplift/discount was pretty minimal. If it is a full CFA, there must be some very nervous partners at AG...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The whole truth | 10-Apr-2011 8:24 pm
If the story is true, then surely there is a risk of inadvertent bias on the part of the trial judge, or at least a perception that there will be? Sumption may well be alive to that. But even if he is, I can think of ten million reasons why he doesn't care right now!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 19-Jun-2012 3:26 pm
I am viewing this from Australia, but this should not be allowed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment