UK: Court Of Appeal Applies Rigorous Approach To Assessing Purpose Element Of Claims To Set Aside Transactions Defrauding Creditors

Last Updated: 4 September 2018
Article by Andrew Cooke

Despite evidence that a defendant knew he was facing potential proceedings which could bankrupt him, at the time he transferred assets to his son, the Court of Appeal held that this was not sufficient to find that the transfer was made for the purpose of defrauding creditors. Consequently, the transfer could not be unwound under s423 Insolvency Act 1996: JSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov, Madiyar Ablyazov [2018] EWCA Civ 1176.

This decision reconfirms previous authority as to the court's approach where a defendant to a section 423 claim had more than one purpose when entering into the relevant transaction. The victim need only show that the purpose of defrauding creditors was a purpose, not the only purpose or even the dominant purpose.

However, victims may face difficulties arising from the court's rigorous approach to distinguishing a purpose from a consequence. Even where the consequence was known or foreseen, a victim must show that the defendant positively intended to bring about that consequence when entering into the transaction. In other words, the victim must prove the subjective intention of the defendant, which may involve substantial disclosure, detailed evidence and forensic investigation.

Where the defendant has entered into an insolvency process following the transaction, victims may wish to consider other potential routes to a remedy, including via an insolvency officeholder's claim in respect of a transaction at an undervalue or a preference. The statutory regime for both of these causes of action includes evidential presumptions which assist in satisfying the burden of proving the defendant's state of mind.

Andrew Cooke, a senior associate in our contentious restructuring, turnaround and insolvency team, considers the decision below.


JSC BTA Bank, a Kazakh bank, was controlled by Mukhtar Ablyazov until his removal from office in 2009 following alleged embezzlement of over $5 billion. He subsequently moved to the UK, where courts in London have handed down almost 50 decisions in long-running proceedings between the Bank and Mr Ablyazov. The Bank secured judgment against Mr Ablyazov and took enforcement action to recover part of the judgment debt.

In connection with enforcement, the Bank identified transactions by Mr Ablyazov that might potentially be set aside. In February 2009, Mr Ablyazov had transferred £1.1 million to his son, Madiyar Ablyazov, who was resident in the UK on a student visa. Madiyar invested £1 million of these funds in UK gilts, meaning that he qualified for a Tier 1 investor visa. He subsequently became a British citizen.

The Bank claimed that the transfer to Madiyar was a transaction defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and sought an order that the transfer be set aside.

Section 423 allows the victim (often an insolvency officeholder but in this case the Bank as a creditor) of a transaction defrauding creditors (generally a transaction at an undervalue or a gift) to seek an order from an English court unwinding the transaction. The court only has jurisdiction to make an order if satisfied that the defendant entered into the transaction for the purpose of:

  1. putting assets beyond the reach of a person who is making, or may at some time make, a claim against him; or
  2. otherwise prejudicing the interests of such a person in relation to the claim which he is making or may make.

At first instance, the deputy judge concluded that the transfer to Madiyar was a gift but that Mr Ablyazov's purpose when making the gift was to secure an investor visa for his son. While Mr Ablyazov appreciated when making the gift that this might prejudice the interests of judgment creditors, that was a by-product of the gift rather than its substantial purpose. As a result, the deputy judge could not make an order under section 423.

The Bank appealed.


The Court of Appeal upheld the deputy judge's order.

Following Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hashmi [2002] EWCA Civ 981, the Court of Appeal confirmed that section 423 can be engaged in "dual purpose" cases – the victim under section 423 need only establish that a purpose of the transaction fell within the section 423 test, not that this was the sole purpose. There is no requirement that the statutory purpose is a "dominant" purpose, or a "substantial" purpose. Where the judges in Hashmi had referred to a "real substantial purpose", they did so simply in order to distinguish a purpose from a consequence. Though the deputy judge made reference to Mr Ablyazov's "substantial" purpose, he had identified the correct legal test following Hashmi. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the deputy judge had correctly applied the test.

Because he found as a matter of fact that Mr Ablyazov would have made the gift whether or not it would have put money beyond the reach of his creditors, the deputy judge was unwilling too readily to infer that this was the purpose of the gift. The Court of Appeal confirmed that this was the correct approach. Even though Mr Ablyazov knew that the gift would put assets beyond the reach of his creditors, the court could not assume that was his purpose unless the Bank proved otherwise. It is for the victim to prove that this was the defendant's purpose. This is clear from the wording of section 423 when contrasted with other provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. For example, section 239 creates a presumption that a defendant has entered into a preference for the purpose of favouring a particular creditor where that creditor is associated with the defendant. Where Parliament had specified a presumption in section 239 but not done the same in section 423, this reflected Parliament's intention that no presumption should be applied in a claim under section 423.

The Bank also argued that the deputy judge should have drawn adverse inferences in relation to Mr Ablyazov because he had lied. Though he did not attend trial to give evidence, Mr Ablyazov had provided a witness statement in which he stated that the £100,000 gifted to his son which had not been invested in gilts was to be used for university fees and living expenses. The deputy judge rejected this evidence, finding that this £100,000 had been intended to cover dealing costs of acquiring £1 million worth of gilts. The Bank argued that, where the deputy judge rejected Mr Ablyazov's evidence as to the purpose behind the gift of £100,000, it should draw an adverse inference that the purpose of the entire gift was to put money out of reach of creditors.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument. It was clear that the deputy judge had treated Mr Ablyazov's evidence about his purpose in making the gift as effectively worthless. It did not follow that the deputy judge could infer that the gift was made for the statutory purpose. The deputy judge had to assess the defendant's rationale for the gift on the facts before him. That was the province of the judge, not the Court of Appeal.

The Bank, finally, argued that the deputy judge had not reached the correct conclusion based on his own factual findings. The deputy judge had found that when Mr Ablyazov made the gift, he knew that he would be facing claims against him in England. Further, he found that Mr Ablyazov had demonstrated a consistent willingness to do all he could to prevent the Bank from being able to enforce against his assets. However, the deputy judge concluded that Mr Ablyazov's purpose was solely connected with securing an investor visa for his son: there were major advantages to holding an investor visa over a student visa; the investor visa had been sought even before Mr Ablyazov had been removed from office by the Bank; and, to Mr Ablyazov who was accused of embezzling over $5 billion, it was unlikely that he would have gone to great lengths to put only £1.1 million out of the reach of his creditors.

While the Court of Appeal concluded that the facts as determined by the deputy judge could have supported a finding that Mr Ablyazov's purpose was to put assets out of reach of creditors, it was properly within the deputy judge's discretion to determine that this was not his purpose. The deputy judge had sat through the trial and was conversant with all the evidence. The Court of Appeal would not interfere with his judgment unless it was a decision that no reasonable judge could have reached, which was not the case here.

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

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

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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