Cayman Islands: The Latest Interpretation Of The Illegality Defence In The Cayman Islands

Last Updated: 14 March 2019
Article by Jennifer Fox

In the long-awaited decision of Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi and Brothers Company ('AHAB') v SAAD Investments Company Limited (In Official Liquidation) (SICL) and Others,1 the Cayman Court ('the Court') dismissed AHAB's claims of fraud alleged against Mr Al Sanea's Cayman companies.  In doing so, numerous complex areas of the law concerning commercial fraud and the ability to trace assets through corporate groups and into sophisticated financial products were considered.  In this note we unpick what was said about the illegality defence and what lessons can be derived for future Cayman cases where this defence might be engaged.

In AHAB, the Court found that AHAB and Al Sanea had acted in concert, in order to fraudulently obtain billions of dollars in borrowings. The loans would not have been made had the banks known the true financial position of the Money Exchange, an unincorporated division of the AHAB Partnership of which Mr Al–Sanea was Managing Director. The Court found that the fraud perpetrated by AHAB and Al Sanea was an enormous, long standing scheme (and was effectively a Ponzi Scheme) which had defrauded more than a hundred banks and that the Money Exchange was, from its very inception, a criminal enterprise and remained so throughout its existence. This decision has recently been appealed on very wide ranging grounds.

As the Court found that the fraudulent actions of Al Sanea were either explicitly or implicitly authorised by AHAB, thus there was no factual basis on which AHAB could show it had been defrauded, there was no need for the Court to find that the defendant Cayman Companies (represented by a number of different official liquidators) could invoke an illegality defence. However, the Court, no doubt in anticipation of the appeal to be heard in 2019, said that if its factual finding of complicity was overturned then the illegality defence would have been engaged.  Consequently,  the Court gave useful guidance on how to approach the 'notoriously knotty' 2 defence of illegality.

The illegality defence is underpinned by the principle that a person should not be able to use the justice system to benefit from their wrongdoing. A claim or counterclaim which falls foul of the principle will not be enforced. Whilst the aim of the doctrine is simple to state, the law of illegality has been in a state of flux for many years primarily due to the inconsistent judicial approaches adopted by the English Supreme Court Justices grappling with its application in practice. It has long been difficult to discern a principled approach to the application of the doctrine in the various factual contexts in which it has been invoked.

AHAB now confirms the Court's view that Lord Toulson's majority speech in the nine-judge panel Supreme Court case of Patel v Mirza3 ('Patel') represents an authoritative statement of law on the issue of illegality4 and that as a result of that decision, the proper approach for the Court in respect of the illegality defence is to consider the new tripartite test as articulated by Lord Toulson in Patel.5 We think that this means that the circumstances in which the illegality defence can be invoked should become somewhat easier to distinguish and apply.

The Test for Illegality

It had previously been commonly accepted that where a claim or counterclaim necessarily relied on any illegal conduct, then the claim would not be permitted to proceed. This was known as the 'reliance test' or the rule in Tinsley v Milligan.6('the reliance test'), and was famously applied by the English Court of Appeal in Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens7 ('Stone & Rolls'). In the Cayman case of TCB Creditor Recoveries Ltd v Arthur Andresen8 allegedly negligent auditors successfully relied on the illegality defence to defeat a professional negligence claim against them for failing to detect that TCB Creditor Recoveries Ltd ('TCB') an investment fund, had been used by its director to defraud investors. Arthur Anderson argued that in bringing the claim, TBC relied on its own illegal publication of false financial statements as part of its pleaded claim, and therefore the claim was barred. The Court agreed and applying the reliance test, ruled that the illegality defence was engaged so to bar TCB's claim.

The 'reliance test' applied in TCB has been the subject of significant criticism as exemplifying the problems of arbitrariness, uncertainty and potential for injustice.9 Lord Toulson in Patel endorsed the English Law Commission's view that the reliance test led to uncertainty 'because there was much confusion over what exactly amounted to 'reliance' which had the potential to force the court into unjust decisions because, focusing on procedural matters, the reliance principle precluded the court from paying attention to the policies that justified the existence of the defence, or taking into account such matters as the seriousness of the illegality and the value of the interest at stake.'10 Lord Toulson rejected this strict rule based approach in favour of a more flexible application of a frame work of clear principles so as to take into account the particular circumstances of the case.

The Court in AHAB agreed with Lord Toulson's approach in Patel and ruled that the deployment of illegality as a defence should be dependent, not on the procedural concept of 'reliance' as applied in Stone & Rolls (and therefore TCB) but upon a range of factors, based upon the nature and circumstances of the illegal conduct involved and the purpose behind the public policy violated. Thus, when considering a defence of illegality, the Court should now apply the following test ('the tripartite test') :

  1. the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim;
  2. any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact; and
  3. whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality.11

Relying on Lord Touslon's judgment, the Chief Justice, accepted that a useful benchmark for the Court when considering the application of the illegality defence is to ask:

  1. how seriously illegal or contrary to public policy the conduct was;
  2. whether the party seeking enforcement knew of, or intended, the conduct;
  3. how central to the contract or its performance the conduct was;
  4. how serious a sanction the denial of enforcement is for the party seeking enforcement;
  5. whether denying enforcement will further the purpose of the rule which the conduct has infringed;
  6. whether denying enforcement will act as a deterrent to conduct that is illegal or contrary to public policy;
  7. whether denying enforcement will ensure that the party seeking enforcement does not profit from the conduct; and
  8. whether denying enforcement will avoid inconsistency in the law thereby maintaining the integrity of the legal system.12

Application to other cases

Whilst the analysis of the Chief Justice in AHAB has simplified the approach to be adopted where a plaintiff has, itself, been a direct party to the wrongdoing alleged against the defendant, as in AHAB, the application of the tripartite test is yet to be tested in Cayman in the various other factual contexts in which the illegality defence has historically been raised.

In particular, a common related issue in a corporate context is whether the wrongful conduct of a company insider, such as a fraudulent director, can be attributed to the company and thus, by reason of an application of the illegality defence, bar any claim by the company for redress against either the fraudulent insider themselves or a third party.

In the case of a corporate plaintiff the state of knowledge of the company's directing mind is usually attributed to the company. If the director dishonestly causes the company to act illegally, prima facie this results in that dishonesty being attributed to the company, so that the claim will be barred by the illegality defence.

However, where a company is bringing a claim against the fraudulent director or his accomplices for losses sustained, the director's fraudulent state of mind will not be attributed to the company where the knowledge relates to his own breach of duty to the company.13 In this scenario, the company tends to be treated as a victim of the fraud, and as such, the illegality defence cannot be invoked so as to permit the defendant to rely on his own fraud to defeat the company's claim. Complexities arise however where there are a variety of wrongdoers and innocent parties involved. It is in these different scenarios where the application of the tripartite test will likely see the Court striving to do justice on behalf of (and to balance the interests of) any innocent parties.  The present difficulty is that the tripartite test is very new and it is therefore difficult to predict how the English and Cayman Courts will apply the test and what broad categories of differing treatment will emerge as a consequence.

As far as claims made by the company against third parties which require reliance on illegal conduct to make good a claim, some guidance can be derived from the recent decision of Singularis Holdings Ltd (In Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd14 which is a case in which the English Court of Appeal applied the new tripartite test in Patel. Here, the English Court held that the claim of the company against a bank for negligence should not be barred on the basis of the illegality defence in circumstances where the company's sole shareholder and director (in fact the very same, Mr Al-Sanea) had acted fraudulently in directing payments to be made out of the company's account. In this case the court found that the director's fraud should not be attributed to the company. Applying the more flexible tripartite test, the English Court found that any bar to the company's claim would undermine the bank's established duty to the company (which had clearly been breached) and would not therefore be a proportionate response.

Conclusion

The new tripartite test confirmed in AHAB goes some way to clarify the law in an area which has traditionally been marked with considerable confusion.

AHAB makes it clear, albeit obiter, that the defence of illegality will be successfully invoked where the claimant is complicit in the wrongful act of the defendant. By contrast, the illegality defence is unlikely to be invoked in circumstances where the company seeks redress against the fraudulent insider itself and such defence would permit the fraudster to defeat the claim by reliance on his own wrongdoing.

In all other circumstances the position is less clear and will require a more complex analysis of the factors identified by the court in Patel when applying the new tripartite test.  We look forward to watching the development of the law in this area and particularly as to how the tripartite test will be construed in the context of the familiar corporate scenarios which arise in Cayman. This will hopefully result in the emergence of more obvious (and thus easier to apply) rules and thus further clarify the role of the illegality defence in each of those scenarios.

Footnote

1 unreported, 31 May 2018

2  Parking Eye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd 2013 Q.B. 840 at 28

3 2016 UKSC 42 SC

4 AHAB (n 1) at section 7D, paragraph 46, page 1175

5 Ibid at paragraph 58, page 1180

6 Tinsley v Milligan 1994 1 A.C. 340

7 Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens 2008 2 W.L.R. 1146; 2008 EWCA Civ 644

8 TCB Creditor Recoveries Ltd v Arthur Andresen 2008 CILR 486

9 'The Illegality Defence' (Law Com No 320).

10 Patel v Mirza 2016 UKSC 42 para 23

11 AHAB (n 1) at section 7D, paragraph 58, page 1180

12 Ibid section 7D, paragraph 59, 1180

13 Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Limited (In liquidation) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue FACV 5/2013 2014 HKCFA 22

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Sign Up
Gain free access to lawyers expertise from more than 250 countries.
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Country
Position
Industry
Mondaq Newsalert
Select Topics
Select Regions
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions