JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2012] EWHC 1819 (Comm) (04 July 2012)

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors [2012] EWHC 1819 (Comm) (04 July 2012)

The rights to draw down under the loan agreements were not assets within the meaning of the freezing order, nor was the exercise of those rights a disposal of or dealing with assets. The freezing order is to be construed as referring to assets of value to the claimant and amenable to enforcement, which does not include a personal, non-assignable, and cancellable right to borrow. The purpose and language of the order, as understood by a reasonable businessman, do not extend to such rights.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1819 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: JSC BTA Bank; Defendant: Mukhtar Ablyazov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Judgment on Application for Declaration and Disclosure
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Choses in Action, Asset Definition, Loan Agreements, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Injunctions Banking Law Freezing Orders Choses in Action Asset Definition Loan Agreements Contempt of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JSC BTA Bank

Claimant

Mukhtar Ablyazov

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (freezing Order) / Judgment on Application for Declaration and Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether rights to draw down under loan agreements constitute assets for the purposes of a freezing order
  2. 2 Whether exercise of such rights is a disposal of or dealing with assets under the order

Ratio Decidendi

The rights to draw down under the loan agreements were not assets within the meaning of the freezing order, nor was the exercise of those rights a disposal of or dealing with assets. The freezing order is to be construed as referring to assets of value to the claimant and amenable to enforcement, which does not include a personal, non-assignable, and cancellable right to borrow. The purpose and language of the order, as understood by a reasonable businessman, do not extend to such rights.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration sought by the Bank refused
  • No order for further disclosure in respect of the loan agreements