United Arab Emirates: Receivable Financing With A Prohibition Against Assignment – A Possibility?

Last Updated: 21 February 2018
Article by Liew Kai Zee

First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC v BP Oil International Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 14

The English Court of Appeal recently considered the effect of a contractual prohibition against assignment of receivable in receivable financing. The decision affirms that such a prohibition is effective to prevent any attempted assignments. However, it does not restrict other alternative methods of transferring the economic benefit of the contract, such as declarations of trust, subrogation, sub-participation and payments to the assignee after receipt by the assignor.

The case also cautions lenders on the need to tighten widely worded representations and warranties on the ability of the assignor to assign receivable in receivable financing.

Facts of First Abu Dhabi Bank

BP Oil International Limited ("BPOI") and Société Anonyme Marocaine de L'Industrie de Raffinage ("SAMIR") entered into an agreement for the delivery of crude oil ("the SAMIR Agreement"). The SAMIR Agreement incorporated the following clause ("the section 34 clause"):

"Neither of the parties to the Agreement shall without the previous consent in writing of the other party (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) assign the Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder. In the event of an assignment in accordance with the terms of this Section, the assignor shall nevertheless remain responsible for the proper performance of the Agreement. Any assignment not made in accordance with the terms of this Section shall be void."

BPOI subsequently entered into a receivables financing arrangement with First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC ("FADB"), under which BPOI transferred to FADB the credit risk of SAMIR failing to make payment under the SAMIR Agreement. FADB would pay to BPOI 95% of the value of the receivable under the SAMIR Agreement in advance of the receivable being due; in exchange, BPOI would assign 95% of the value of the receivable to FADB and pay it a fee. It was further provided in the agreements between BPOI and FADB that if such assignment was not able to take place:

  1. FADB would be subrogated to BPOI's rights against SAMIR;
  2. BPOI would take legal proceedings against SAMIR for amounts unpaid by SAMIR;
  3. BPOI would hold on trust for FADB the proceeds of 95% of the receivable; and
  4. FADB would be entitled to a funded sub-participation in the rights to receive payment in respect of 95% of the receivable.

BPOI also represented and warranted to FADB that:

"BPOI is not prohibited by any security, loan or other agreement, to which it is a party, from disposing of the Receivable evidenced by the Invoice as contemplated herein and such sale does not conflict with any agreement binding on [BPOI]".

SAMIR's consent was not obtained in relation to the assignment of the receivable. Subsequently, after SAMIR took steps to file for insolvency before payment in respect of the receivable were made, FADB commenced proceedings against BPOI, claiming a breach of the representation and warranty.


The court had to determine three issues:

  1. What, on its true construction, was BPOI contractually prohibited from doing under the section 34 clause?
  2. What, as a matter of law, was the effect of such a restriction on BPOI's ability to dispose of the receivable?
  3. As a matter of construction, was BPOI in breach of the representation and warranty?


On the first issue, the Court held that the section 34 clause imposed a contractual obligation on BPOI not to assign its future or existing rights under the SAMIR Agreement without SAMIR's prior consent. This includes the attempted assignment of 95% of the receivable by BPOI to FADB. The prohibition on assignment did not, however, impose any contractual restriction on BPOI from:

  1. Paying to FADB all payments received from SAMIR in connection with the receivable;
  2. Where an assignment was unable to take place, subrogating FADB to its rights against SAMIR;
  3. Holding the proceeds of the receivable on trust for FADB; and
  4. Granting FADB a funded sub-participation in respect of the rights to receive payment of the receivable.

Payment by the assignor to assignee after receipt of sums due is not prohibited, since these are not "rights under" the underlying contract. The Court affirmed its 2007 decision in Barbados Trust Company Ltd v Bank of Zambia that prohibitions on assignment do not preclude declarations of trust by the assignor in favour of the assignee. Further, it was common ground between the parties that clauses prohibiting assignment also do not prevent the creation of rights of subrogation (any claim brought pursuant to the subrogation right must be brought by and in the name of BPOI) or sub-participation (this would result in a debtor-creditor relationship between BPOI and FADB without giving FADB an interest in the underlying debt).

On the second issue, the Court admitted that the House of Lords' decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd was binding on it. In that case, it was held that contractual prohibitions on assignment are effective to prevent attempted assignments of contractual rights in breach of the prohibition. Nonetheless, the Court considered at great length Professor Goode's proposition that "a no-assignment clause is valid only so far as it operates as a matter of contract, conditioning the duty to perform, not as a restraint on alienation", and that "[i]f ... it purports to render a transfer void ... it invades the field of property law and is of no effect, both on the ground of repugnancy and on the ground of public policy". While clearly impressed with Professor Goode's analysis, the Court's remarks are ultimately obiter dicta since it observed that BPOI did not seek to argue this issue before it. The Court thus proceeded on the assumption that the section 34 clause was capable of rendering ineffective any purported equitable assignment of the receivable without SAMIR's consent.

In relation to the third issue, the Court held that BPOI was not in breach of the representation and warranty. It observed that the parties expressly contemplated the possibility of a contractual restriction against assignment, and thus provided for alternative means of transferring the economic benefit of the receivable to FDAB. Moreover, the primary means of transferring such economic benefit was for BPOI to make immediate payment of amounts received from SAMIR to FDAB, and to impose a trust over such amounts received in BPOI's hands. Only to the extent that such sums were not received or paid over to FDAB did the assignment take effect. Against this background, the Court considered that on true construction of the representation and warranty, the words "disposing" or "sale" did not refer exclusively to an assignment. Hence, even accepting that the section 34 clause was effective to prohibit assignment of the receivable, it did not prohibit other means of transferring the economic benefit of the receivable. There was accordingly no breach of the representation and warranty.

Implications for Banks

1. Clauses prohibiting assignment of debts do not prohibit other ways of transferring economic benefit of underlying contract

The case demonstrates that despite the existence of a clause in the underlying contract prohibiting assignment of receivables thereunder, there are other valid mechanisms by which banks may acquire the economic benefit of the contract may be transferred. Clauses prohibiting assignment do not, as a matter of construction, preclude payment of amounts received by the assignor to the assignee, declarations of trust, and the giving of rights of subrogation and sub-participation. Assignees would do well to strengthen their position by including such other means of transferring the benefit of the underlying contract in their agreements.

2. A potential relook at Linden Gardens?

Despite being bound by the House of Lords' decision in Linden Gardens, and the issue not being argued before it, the English Court of Appeal referred extensively to Professor Goode's analysis on the effect of contractual prohibitions on the assignment. This case has been roundly criticised for several years, and it was thus perhaps unsurprising that the English Court of Appeal took this opportunity to consider the "strong arguments in favour of Professor Goode's proposition" that "it is not competent for the debtor to exclude by contract the proprietary effects of an assignment as between assignor and assignee, or the creation of a trust as between trustee and beneficiary; and that 'all he can do is to insist that he will not recognise the title of the beneficiary or the ability of the beneficiary to bring proceedings in his own right.'" Notably, Professor Goode has suggested that Linden Gardens concerned the issue of whether the assignment was effective against the debtor, rather than as between the assignor and assignee. Thus, while the Court was bound by Linden Gardens, it could – if it so wished – adopted Professor Goode's characterisation of that decision in order to distinguish it from the present facts, had the issue been live before it. For now, at least, Linden Gardens remains authority from the apex court in UK, and is binding in the UK and persuasive in Singapore. But this decision now provides fresh ammunition to a future litigant wishing to challenge the correctness of Linden Gardens.

This decision, as noted above, already lends considerable support to lenders in the context of receivables financing by permitting various methods of acquiring the economic benefit of an underlying contract despite a contractual prohibition on assignment of the receivable. A potential reversal of Linden Gardens would go even further by holding that an equitable assignment is effective to transfer the receivable in respect of an underlying contract in the face of a contractual prohibition on assignment.

3. Representations and warranties should be tightened to expressly cover "assignment"

A representation and warranty employing general language that the assignor is not prohibited from "disposing" of, or effecting a "sale" of, the receivable may not be breached by the existence of a prohibition on assignment if other means of transferring the economic benefit of the contract were envisaged by the parties. Lenders will benefit from tighter drafting that expressly covers "assignment" of the receivable, in order to succeed in a claim against the assignor for breach of representation and/or warranty.

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.

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

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.


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