CL-2022-000367 - [2025] EWHC 2877 (Comm)

In the course of Mr Bonnier’s submissions on the law, he argued that the Debarring Order would breach his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and took me to JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2013] 1 WLR 1331 in support of this submission.

I am satisfied that the Debarring Order did not contravene Mr Bonnier’s Article 6 rights, having in mind Arden LJ’s analysis in Stolzenberg v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd [2004]EWCA Civ 827, [161], which is quoted in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2013] 1 WLR 1331, [139], and reproduced below:

“161.

Article 6 of the Convention requires attention to be addressed to a matter which has always been implicit in cases of this kind, namely that the effect of the court's refusal to grant relief is that the losing party will be deprived of a trial of his defence on the merits. Clearly, as the judge recognized, that is an important factor. But three points must be borne in mind. First, it is open to a party to consent to judgment being given against him without a trial on the merits. In the absence of some special feature (not present here) there is no public policy consideration which forces an unwilling party to undergo a trial if he, being competent to do so, decides against this course. Second, this is not an appeal against the judgments entered against the appellants. The appellants cannot say that those orders were wrongly made. Third, the state can impose restrictions on the right of access to court provided that the restrictions serve a legitimate aim, are proportionate and do not destroy the very essence of the right. Here, the legitimate aim in imposing a sanction is to secure compliance with court orders, which in the instant case were made to ensure the effectiveness of freezing orders. The imposition of a sanction is proportionate if it is reasonably necessary for achieving that aim. The essence of the right of access to court is not destroyed because the litigant has the opportunity to seek relief against the sanctions. The refusal of that relief is Convention-compliant if the same tests are satisfied. The legitimate aim remains the same. Proportionality will be satisfied if the overriding objective is met. The essence of the right will not be destroyed even if refused, since the appellants always had the chance to comply with the court orders and to help progress the case to trial.”

Mr Bonnier had the chance to comply with the court’s orders and to help this matter progress to trial. It was his failure to comply with the terms of HHJ Pelling KC’s 12 August 2025 Unless Order that led to the imposition of a proportionate sanction, at the hearing before HHJ Pelling KC on 1 October 2025. This does not breach Mr Bonnier’s Convention rights.

Mr Bonnier asked me to make it clear in my judgment that the trial was a civil trial, in which the issues arising had to be proved to the civil standard, not to the standard that would apply in a criminal prosecution. I am happy to confirm this.