JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

Mr Ablyazov’s rights under the loan agreements were not assets within the meaning of the freezing order, nor was his exercise of those rights a disposal of or dealing with assets. The right to borrow was not the type of asset the freezing order was intended to restrain, as it had no value to the claimant, was not assignable, and could not be enforced against. The extended definition in the order did not alter this conclusion.

Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; Defendants: Mukhtar Ablyazov & 16 Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Scope of Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for declaration refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Choses in Action, Asset Definition, Enforcement of Judgments
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Choses in Action Asset Definition Enforcement of Judgments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov & 16 Ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Judgment on Application for Declaratory Relief Regarding Scope of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rights to borrow under loan agreements constitute assets within the meaning of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether exercise of such rights is a disposal of or dealing with assets under the order

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ablyazov’s rights under the loan agreements were not assets within the meaning of the freezing order, nor was his exercise of those rights a disposal of or dealing with assets. The right to borrow was not the type of asset the freezing order was intended to restrain, as it had no value to the claimant, was not assignable, and could not be enforced against. The extended definition in the order did not alter this conclusion.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration refused

Orders

  • No declaration made; no consequential relief granted