JERSEY’S government has opened itself up to accusations of conspiracy and bad faith from Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich after deleting data related to a criminal investigation brought against the tycoon.
News broke over the weekend that Roman Abramovich was making “claims of conspiracy” against the Government of Jersey.
It has now emerged that this was due to the government admitting that its email-archiving system was purged in 2022 to delete data from before March 2020.
Judgments regarding the former Chelsea football club owner were published this week after a gagging order was lifted, meaning that the details of the two-year legal battle have been made public for the first time.
The documents show how Mr Abramovich was allowed to add new claims to his lawsuit against the government, including unlawful means conspiracy by government ministers and officials, misfeasance in public office, and bad faith allegations.
These additions have been refused in February 2025, but Abramovich appealed. The appeal was successful after new information came to light about the handling of data and a previously undisclosed email purge – which was enough to justify the allegations going forward to trial.
After the initial ruling, the government admitted that its email-archiving system was purged in March 2022 to delete data from before March 2020 to “avoid the archiving system holding too much data”.
In an affidavit on 20 June 2025, the head of the government’s ministerial office, Paul Bradbury, stated: “The government has sought to further examine if there are any issues with the disclosure provided in terms of the documents available from pre-2020. It has been confirmed to me that cryoserver would only hold records as far back as March 2020.
“This is because, on 29 March 2022, I am advised that there was a retention purge of the cryoserver system. As a result of this, it means that any material held on cryoserver before March 2020, would have been deleted. I understand that this is to avoid the archiving system holding too much data.”
Following these revelations, Master of the Royal Court David Cadin suggested that there was a “sense that all is not as it seems”.
In a separate judgment quoted during the appeal, Mr Cadin raised concerns that only a small fraction of documents were searched or disclosed.
He pointed out that 98% of documents reviewed were “irrelevant”, suggesting the searches were poorly designed.
Mr Cadin said: “It is not obvious how it might be ‘reasonable and proportionate’ only to search a huge pile of some 92,000 documents, 98% of which are irrelevant […] when the Government of Jersey defendants […] accept that there are custodians who are likely to hold personal data but whose datasets have not been interrogated.”
The government’s lawyer gave the example of a document containing a reference to the font “Times New Roman” that came up during a search for “Roman Abramovich”.
Mr Cadin regarded the ratio of withheld documents to disclosed documents to be “rather odd” and “indicative of a lack of focus in the searches”.
He explained that there are likely to have been other systems and databases which have not been located or searched due to the focus on the cryoserver, adding: “It is plain that cryoserver is only a subset of the data held by the Government of Jersey.”
He said that the cryoserver search was “rudimentary”, adding that it was “plain and obvious” that there were “deficiencies” in the government’s compliance with the data requests which extended “far beyond the fact that data was purged from the cryoserver”.
Mr Cadin also highlighted a shift in the government’s explanation of its conduct.
In earlier filings and sworn affidavits, ministers and officials repeatedly asserted that Abramovich’s personal data had been provided “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
But when the scale of missing material later emerged, the government claimed it had only carried out a “reasonable and proportionate” search – a justification that had appeared nowhere in its previous correspondence, pleadings or evidence, and for which it had never set out any criteria.
Mr Cadin said this new reasoning, raised for the first time in oral argument, compounded his “sense of unease” given that it contradicted the government’s earlier assurances of full compliance.
He also noted that “no explanation” had been given about why digital search technology had not been used sooner as, according to the head of the ministerial office, around 140,000 raw documents were being reviewed manually.
He described the government’s failure to provide information as “serious and directly impacts on the progress of the litigation”, and its behaviour as “inconsistent and incompatible” with defending the claim from Mr Abramovich.
The more recent judgment also criticised the fact that ministers and departments took two years to produce what the court described as a “seriously deficient” response.
The court said this was “difficult to accept” given the resources available to the government and also found that the government had shown a “reluctance” to “engage in a reasonable manner” with Mr Abramovich or “to assist the court”.
The judgment also emphasised that the government is not an ordinary litigant, and ministers “are holders of public office and have the resources of the government behind them”.
The existence of Mr Abramovich’s separate judicial review challenging the investigation and asset freeze was described by the court as “the elephant in the room”. Whether that is the “ulterior motive” for the delay will be decided in court.
The court concluded: “When looked at cumulatively, and with the addition of the circumstances in which the purge of data came to light, which was after the February judgment, the court regards the balance as having been tilted in favour of allowing the allegations of bad faith to be pleaded.”
This judgment does not decide whether the government actually acted in bad faith, but decides whether the allegations are properly pleaded and serious enough to be tested at trial.
A spokesperson for the Government of Jersey said: “The Government of Jersey is aware of recent media reports concerning ongoing legal proceedings involving Mr Roman Abramovich. We respect the independence of the courts and the integrity of the legal process, and we will continue to defend our position vigorously.
“We categorically reject allegations of conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, or bad faith. These claims are entirely without foundation and will be addressed through the appropriate legal channels.
“The Government of Jersey has consistently supported the principle of open justice and opposed Mr Abramovich’s application to the Privy Council for the case to be heard in private. However, as proceedings remain active, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”
