Where a transaction challenged under s 423 IA can be said to have had more than one purpose, there is no requirement that the prohibited statutory purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of claimants must have been a ‘substantial’ purpose of the transaction before relief will be granted. The relevant enquiry is simply whether the transaction was entered into for the prohibited purpose at all.

Play

There is no rule of law that states that if a debtor knows, at the time of entering into the relevant transaction, that he was facing claims, the court must find, unless the debtor provides evidence to the contrary, that the transaction was entered into for the prohibited purpose.

The Insolvency Act 1986 contains no presumption to that effect and the court held here that there was no reason for the courts to invent one. At best, such knowledge on the part of the debtor may, depending on all the circumstances of the case, support an inference that the transaction was entered into for the prohibited purpose.

With regard to whether the claim under s.423 was statute-barred, the court held that the limitation period which applied here was six years, as it was a sum recoverable by statute and therefore fell within s.9(1) of the Limitation Act 1980. The six year period began to run from the date of the transfer on 26 February 2009. This being the case the claim was statute-barred on the face of it, as it had been issued in December 2015. 

Nevertheless, the bank had relied upon s.32 of the 1980 Act, and this provides for postponement of the limitation period in certain cases of fraud, concealment or mistake. However, although the bank's case was that Mr Ablyazov snr had been guilty of fraud or concealment, the bank did not allege that Madyar Ablyazov (his son) was also guilty. Because of that, and although the bank’s case at trial was that Mr Ablyazov snr had been guilty of fraud or concealment, it was not alleged that his son was so guilty. So, the issue became whether the limitation period was postponed as against Madiyar Ablyazov on the basis that he was “claiming through” Mr Ablyazov snr. The court held that he was and that the claim (if it had been well founded) would not have been time barred.