In the recent decision in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2015] UKSC 64, the UK Supreme Court determined that for the purposes of breaching a freezing order, dealing with ‘assets’ included dealing with sums drawn down under loan agreements. This seems surprising in view of the fact that under the strict construction principle the meaning of ‘assets’ should safely be understood given the serious consequences which flow from the contravention of a freezing order; namely contempt of court punishable by imprisonment. The Supreme Court appears more concerned that the spirit of an order should not be circumvented rather than a adopting a literal interpretation.
In the recent decision in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2015] UKSC 64, the UK Supreme Court determined that for the purposes of breaching a freezing order, dealing with ‘assets’ included dealing with sums drawn down under loan agreements. This seems surprising in view of the fact that under the strict construction principle the meaning of ‘assets’ should safely be understood given the serious consequences which flow from the contravention of a freezing order; namely contempt of court punishable by imprisonment. The Supreme Court appears more concerned that the spirit of an order should not be circumvented rather than a adopting a literal interpretation.
