Re Ablyazov

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeBirt, Bailiff and Jurats Tibbo and Crill
Judgment Date23 December 2011
Date23 December 2011
ROYAL COURT
Birt, Bailiff and Jurats Tibbo and Crill

A.J.N. Dessain for the representors.

Cases cited:

(1) Kilderkin Invs. v. Player, 1984-85 CILR 63, considered.

(2) Millennium Fin. Ltd. v. McNamara, St. Kitts & Nevis C.A., Case No. HCVAP 2008/012, March 15th, 2010, considered.

(3) Schemmer v. Property Resources Ltd., [1975] Ch. 273; [1974] 3 W.L.R. 406; [1974] 3 All E.R. 451, considered.

(4) Terry v. Butterfield Bank (Guernsey) Ltd., 2005-06 GLR 327, considered.

Text cited:

Dicey & Morris, The Conflict of Laws, 14th ed., vol. 2, para. 30-127, at 1400-1401 (2006).

Conflict of Laws—recognition of foreign proceedings—appointment of receiver—Royal Court may recognize receiver appointed by foreign court if sufficient connection between subject of receivership order and jurisdiction in which order made, e.g. receivers appointed by English court, following detailed inter partes hearing, to recover and preserve international assets of English-resident defendant pending resolution of English proceedings

The representors sought the Royal Court's recognition of their appointment by an English court as receivers.

Proceedings had been commenced in England against a Mr. Ablyazov, who was resident in England, in which it was alleged that he had misappropriated substantial sums from the plaintiff, a bank incorporated in Kazakhstan, when he had been its chairman. Pursuant to a freezing order made by the English court, Mr. Ablyazov disclosed personal assets worth several billion dollars, held through a complex worldwide network of companies, trusts and nominees.

The English court considered that Mr. Ablyazov had failed to make full disclosure of his assets pursuant to the freezing order and that the order might not provide the plaintiff with adequate protection against the risk of dissipation of his assets prior to trial. Accordingly, following a five-day inter partes hearing, that court appointed the representors (partners in an English firm of accountants) as receivers to recover and preserve certain assets of Mr. Ablyazov—principally shares in and assets held by, for or on behalf of some 700 companies incorporated in different jurisdictions, including Jersey—pending the outcome of the litigation.

The receivers made the present application for recognition of their appointment for the purposes of exercising in Jersey their powers under the receivership order (which had already been recognized by the courts in several other jurisdictions). Paragraph 12C of the receivership order provided that "any person upon whom this order is served .?.?. shall—(a) give to the receivers such information and documentation relating to the .?.?. assets, (b) attend on the receivers at all such times, and (c) do all such things as the receivers may reasonably require for the purposes of getting in the .?.?. assets and carrying out their functions in relation thereto."

Held, recognizing the appointment of the receivers:

The court had power under its inherent jurisdiction to recognize the appointment of the receivers because there was a sufficient connection between the defendant whose assets had been made the subject of the receivership order and the jurisdiction in which the receivers were appointed, namely his residence there. It was appropriate to exercise that discretion in favour of recognizing the receivership order, as the order had been made following a five-day inter partes hearing and the English judge had therefore been in an excellent position to assess whether the order was necessary. The Royal Court had read the English court's detailed judgment and it was in the interests of comity to authorize the receivers to exercise their powers in respect of those assets which were situated in Jersey. Furthermore, it was significant that this was an international receivership involving some 700 companies in many different jurisdictions. There was clearly an interlocking network of companies and it was reasonable for the receivers to seek recognition in a number of jurisdictions; indeed, the order had already been recognized in five other jurisdictions. The court would therefore recognize the receivership order and authorize the receivers to exercise their powers within Jersey, subject to two provisos. First, it was not necessary or proportionate to give the receivers the power to require any person in Jersey to attend on the receivers to provide information about the assets. That was a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sixth Representation
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 28 August 2013
    ...Advocate A. J. N. Dessain and Advocate E. B. Drummond for the Representors. Authorities In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44 . Standish and Others -v- Eurasisa Logistics Ltd and Others [2012] JRC 072 . Representation of Standish and Milsom re Ablyazov [2013] JRC 150 . C......
  • The Third Representation of David Standish, John Milsom; and Jeremy Outen, Receivrs of the Assets of Mr Mukhtar Ablyazov
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 4 October 2013
    ...Ablyazov. Mrs S. Sharpe., Crown Advocate. Advocate A. D. Hoy for the Defendant. Authorities In the matter of the assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44. David Standish, John Milsom and Jeremy Outen -v- Eurasia Logistics Limited and Nautilus Trust Company Limited [2012] JRC 072. Mubarik -v- Mu......
  • The Representation Relating to Violet Betty Matthews and Felcroft
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 23 April 2018
    ...of the bankruptcy of the First International Bank of Grenada Limited [2002] JLR Note 7 . Bankruptcy Désastre Jersey Law 1990. Ablyazof [2012] (1) JLR 44 . Hearing (Civil — application to seek order that an Act of Court dated 29 March 2018 be registered in the Public Registry of the Island. ......
  • The Fifth Representation of David Standish and John Milsom, Receivers of the Assets of Mukhtar Ablyazov
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 30 July 2013
    ...Advocate A. J. N. Dessain and Advocate E. B. Drummond for the Representors. Authorities In the matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44. Representation of Standish and Others [2012] JRC 072. JSC BTA Bank -v- Mukhtar Ablyazov [2013] EWHC 1979 (Comm). Re AG (Manchester) Limited [200......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Insolvency: How Strong And How Long Is 'The Golden Thread'?
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 10 June 2014
    ...Trust 2005 JLR 250 and in relation to injunctive and disclosure relief, including foreign court-appointed receivers as in Re Ablyazov 2012 (1) JLR 44. The effect of the Bankruptcy (Désastre) (Jersey) Law 1990, the Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) (Jersey) Law 1960 and the UNCITRAL Model L......
  • Appointment By The Jersey Court Of Foreign Receivers As Managers Of A Jersey Company
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 8 January 2014
    ...the Jersey Court's recognition of their appointment as receivers, which was duly granted (see In the Matter of the Assets of Ablyazov [2012] (1) JLR 44). In that judgment, the Jersey Court concluded that it had an inherent jurisdiction to recognise foreign court appointed receivers provided......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT