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 โassetsโ included dealing with sums drawn down under loan agreements. This seems surprising in view of the fact that ย under the strict construction principle the meaning of โassetsโ 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 ย 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 โassetsโ included dealing with sums drawn down under loan agreements. This seems surprising in view of the fact that ย under the strict construction principle the meaning of โassetsโ 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 ย more concerned that the spirit of an order should not be circumvented rather than a adopting a literal interpretation.