High Court dismisses late evidence in Okuashvili case
High Court rejects late submission of evidence in complex international business dispute
Background of the Case
The High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, presided over by Mr. Justice Rajah, recently addressed a significant procedural issue in the cases involving Zaza Okuashvili and several corporate entities against Bidzina Ivanishvili and others. The cases, registered under numbers BL-2022-000657 and BL-2023-000303, involved complex international business disputes with claims dating back to 2022 and 2023.
Procedural Breach
The central issue before the court was an application by Mr. Okuashvili to admit a new expert report from Professor Bowring and a new witness statement from Mr. Okuashvili himself. These documents were not submitted in accordance with the court's case management timetable, which required evidence to be served by August 2024 for claim 2 and October 2024 for claim 1.
Legal Framework
Mr. Justice Rajah applied the criteria established in Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 to determine whether the late evidence should be admitted. The first step in this analysis was to assess the seriousness and significance of the breach. The breach was deemed serious as it disrupted the preparation for a five-day hearing involving multiple parties and complex issues.
Reasons for the Breach
The reason provided for the delay was a change in legal representation, which resulted in the intended evidence not being prepared and served. Mr. Justice Rajah found this explanation unsatisfactory, noting that the change in representation did not justify non-compliance with the court's directions.
Content of the Late Evidence
The court found that Professor Bowring's report was not merely an update but included new material that could have been addressed in the previous expert report filed in October 2024. Mr. Okuashvili's witness statement introduced new factual assertions, such as personal risks he faced if returning to Georgia, which were contested and had not been responded to by the defendants due to the late submission.
Court's Decision
In light of these findings, Mr. Justice Rajah decided not to permit the late filing of the expert report and witness statement. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines to ensure fair preparation and hearing of cases.
Implications of the Ruling
This ruling highlights the court's strict approach to procedural compliance, particularly in complex international disputes. Legal practitioners are reminded of the critical importance of adhering to court-imposed deadlines to avoid prejudicing their clients' cases.
Conclusion
The High Court's decision in this case serves as a cautionary tale for litigants and their legal representatives about the consequences of failing to comply with procedural requirements. The ruling reinforces the court's commitment to ensuring that justice is administered efficiently and fairly.