UK: The Court Of Appeal Recognises That The Illegality Defence Is Still Uncertain And In Urgent Need Of Review By The Supreme Court

Last Updated: 1 December 2015
Article by Simon Konsta

This Court of Appeal decision in (1) Top Brands Ltd (2) Lemione Services Ltd v (1) Gagen Dulari Sharma (2) Barry John Ward (as former liquidators of Mama Milla Ltd) (2015) is noteworthy as it underlines that the "illegality defence" is still in a state of flux and in need of clarification by the Supreme Court.

In a relatively rare case against an insolvency practitioner who paid away company funds in error, the Court refused to permit her to rely on the defence of illegality to defeat the creditors' claim against her for compensation for breach of duty. This was on the basis that the monies she wrongly paid away were not "criminal property" and given that there was not sufficient nexus between the alleged fraud and the claim brought against her. The fraud in question was merely "collateral" to the creditors' claim. Although this decision turns on its own facts, it nevertheless highlights that the courts will not easily permit insolvency practitioners to escape their duties (as set out in the Insolvency Act 1986) even where the factual background involves evidence of fraud by the company to which they have been appointed.

Prior to this decision, the most recent decision on this front by the Supreme Court was in Jetivia & Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) (2015) (please click here for our briefing note). In that case, the seven judges differed in their reasoning but collectively concluded that the illegality defence did not apply and could not bar the company's claims against its own directors (for breach of duty). This was because the illegal conduct of the directors could not be attributed to the company. However, the reasoning of the judges leading to this conclusion was not aligned and the proper approach to the illegality test remains unclear. Lord Neuberger indicated that this should be addressed by the Supreme Court in due course.

Top Brands

Mamma Milla Ltd (MML) supplied toiletry products until entering creditors' voluntary liquidation in 2011. The business conducted through the company involved VAT acquisition fraud. The claimant creditors delivered goods to the company but had not been paid. A few weeks before liquidation, MML sent invoices for the goods which had been delivered to its onward purchaser, "SERT". Over GBP 500,000 was paid by SERT into MML's account. The account was frozen and the liquidator (Ms Sharma) appointed. The sum was transferred to her, and she authorised the transfer of the sum to different recipients, wrongly believing that the money was supposed to be returned to SERT as a result of being an advance payment for goods that were never delivered.

The claimant creditors (Top Brands Ltd and Lemione Services Ltd) contended that the Ms Sharma had wrongly paid away monies belonging to MML in breach of duties she owed under sections 107 and 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to properly distribute company assets and was negligent and/or in breach of her fiduciary duties and claimed compensation from the company's liquidator, pursuant to section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The High Court found that Ms Sharma failed to: (1) take adequate steps to ascertain MML's state of affairs at liquidation, (2) give adequate consideration to the material available as to MML's trading assets and liabilities, (3) attempt to obtain important missing information, (4) give adequate instructions to the solicitor, who advised that repayment could be made, (5) give adequate thought to new circumstances and evidence as they presented themselves to her, (6) make adequate enquiries as to the payees of the Sum before payment, and (7) failed to notice, before making payments out, that the indemnity in fact obtained was not in the required form.

The High Court concluded that Ms Sharma did owe a duty of care, had acted in breach of her duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 and was liable in negligence by acting below the standard of care to be expected of an ordinary, skilled practitioner. The Court observed that liquidators' duties are owed to the company but that creditors have an indirect or derived interest in the proper exercise by a liquidator of his/her duties and are authorised to hold a liquidator to account for the benefit of the company. The High Court concluded that Mrs Sharma was in a fiduciary position, stating that, "upon appointment a liquidator becomes an agent of the company; fiduciary duties obviously flow from this....It is difficult to follow how a liquidator, whose task is to gather in the money and property of a company and distribute it to others, is not a fiduciary" and concluded that Mrs Sharma's conduct could be characterised as a "conscious disclaimer or disregard of responsibility for the assets in her charge on a material scale" and crossed the border into the territory of breach of fiduciary duty.

The High Court refused to grant Ms Sharma relief and found that she could not rely on the illegality defence as a bar to the claim. Accordingly, she was ordered to pay GBP 548,074.56 to MML by way of compensation. Mrs Sharma appealed and it fell to the Court of Appeal to decide whether or not she had an illegality defence i.e. whether the claim under section 212 was in reality a claim to recover criminal property and, for that reason, the High Court should have dismissed the application.

The illegality defence

In summary, Ms Sharma submitted that, as MML's only business was VAT fraud, the sum that she had paid away was criminal property and hence that MML had suffered no loss because the sum was never legitimately acquired in the first place and was tainted from the moment it was received. The Court discussed the alternative approaches adopted in previous case-law to the illegality defence which are mentioned briefly below:

  • The "reliance test", the effect of which is that the claim is barred only if the claimant needs to rely on (i.e. to assert, whether by way of pleading or evidence) facts which disclose the illegality. This approach was favoured by three judges in Tinsley v Milligan (1994). In Bilta, doubt was expressed over whether this test was still the law and whether or not the Supreme court ought to determine this point
  • The "sufficiently close connection" test such that the claim is barred if there is a sufficiently close connection between the illegality and the claim made (favoured by two judges in Tinsley v Milligan and Lords Carnwath and Hughes in Hounga v Allen (2014))
    NB: In Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc (2014), Lord Sumption said that both of the above tests are intended to exclude those consequences of an illegal act which is merely collateral to the claim
  • The "inextricable link" test to the effect that the claim is barred if there is an inextricable link between the relief claimed and the illegal conduct (endorsed in several cases)
  • Causative criterion i.e. to the effect that the illegality defence will only be made out if the illegality in question has a causative relationship to the loss claimed
  • Public policy approach i.e. the policy in favour of disallowing claims where that would give the appearance of condoning illegal conduct

Deciding that (whichever test was applied) the illegality defence could not succeed, and distinguishing the facts of this case from other cases relied on by Ms Sharma (including Stone v Rolls (in liquidation) Ltd v Moore Stephens (2009), the Court of Appeal stated, "In the present case... the illegality has no causative relationship to the loss claimed. It is.. no more than collateral to the Respondents' claim." Further, "I reject Mr Soole's argument that there was a close connection, or inextricable link, between the relief claimed ... and the illegal conduct of MML and its directors on the ground that the Sum was criminal property."

The judge observed that the lack of the "inextricable link" between, on the one hand, the loss claimed, and on the other hand, the fraudulent conduct of MML and its directors, was reflected in the fact that it was not necessary for the respondents to rely on anything illegal in order to found their claim against Ms Sharma, since, by the time of her involvement, MML's business had entirely ceased and the monies paid into MML (and paid away by Ms Sharma) could never have actually been employed in a VAT fraud.

Moreover, no actual finding had been made by the High Court to the effect that there was a criminal conspiracy by the company and its directors to commit VAT fraud. Accordingly, it had to be assumed that the sum paid was pursuant to genuine and lawful contracts of sale. Even if the sum could be deemed "criminal property" pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (the Act), the Court stated that it was not clear that this would necessarily enable the successful deployment of the illegality defence since the Act provides, "no clear steer for the scope and application of the common law principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio in a civil action for negligence and breach of duty".

The Court emphasised that public policy considerations had to adapt to the circumstances and one policy could be outweighed by another. It did not consider that the policy of avoiding giving the appearance of condoning illegal conduct, was persuasive here since the company's fraudulent business was carried on prior to its winding up and had no close connection to the loss claimed. Moreover, it was superseded by the other important public policy that sections 107 and 212 of Insolvency Act 1986, requiring a liquidator properly to collect in and distribute the company's property among the creditors in accordance with the statutory scheme, should be upheld and given effect.

It is notable that the decisions reached by the courts in cases requiring consideration of the illegality defence, are highly fact specific. The courts will, in general, attempt to consider the defence in a sensible manner which achieves a just and fair result. In Bilta, it would clearly have been inequitable to allow the defence to succeed as it would have effectively prevented the company from claiming against its own directors for their wrongdoing. In Stone & Rolls, the auditors who were not privy to fraud by the company, successfully raised the illegality defence to prevent themselves being sued by the company for failing to prevent it from committing the fraud. In Bilta, Lord Neuberger emphasised that that Stone & Rolls very much turned on its own specific facts which involved the company being managed by a sole (fraudulent) director who was the company's directing mind and will. In this case, the liquidator was not permitted to use the illegality defence to prevent funds being returned to the company, which would then be available to pay down the debts owed to (non fraudulent) creditors, including the claimants and HMRC. In all these cases, it is possible to discern the courts ensuring an outcome which is the most equitable given the differing factual circumstances presented to them.

That said, there can be no doubt that it is currently very difficult to clearly define the parameters of the illegality defence. The Court of Appeal concluded that the illegality defence was ripe for consideration by the Supreme Court, stating that, "it is apparent from the differences in view in Bilta, about the current state of the law, that the proper approach to the defence of illegality needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court, (conceivably with a panel of nine judges) as soon as appropriately possible." We look forward to and anticipate any such clarification from the Supreme Court and will report in due course.

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
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.