Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)

Last updated

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)
Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameJetivia SA & Anor v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) & Others
Decided22 April 2015
Citation(s)[2015] UKSC 23
Case history
Appealed fromJetivia SA & Anor v Bilta (UK) Ltd & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 968, [2013] 3 WLR 1167(31 July 2013)
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Neuberger
Lord Mance
Lord Clarke
Lord Sumption
Lord Carnwath
Lord Toulson
Lord Hodge
Keywords
fraud, fraudulent trading, attribution, illegality

Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) [2015] UKSC 23 (sometimes referred to as Bilta (UK) Limited v Nazir) is a UK company and insolvency law decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in relation to (i) the attribution of unlawful acts of a director to the company where the company is the victim of the unlawful act, and (ii) the extent to which liability for fraudulent trading under section 213 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extraterritorial effect.

Contents

The Supreme Court held that: [1]

  1. the defence of ex turpi causa could not operate to prevent a claim brought by the liquidators on behalf of a company against its former directors on the basis that, where the company was essentially the victim of a fraud by the directors, the conduct of the directors would not be attributed to the company thereby treating the company as a party to the illegality; and
  2. liability for fraudulent trading under the Insolvency Act 1986 had extraterritorial effect.

Facts

Paragraphs 113 - 116 of the joint opinion of Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge summarised the alleged facts as follows:

  1. Bilta (UK) Ltd ("Bilta"), a company incorporated in England, seeks through its joint liquidators, Mr Hellard and Mr Ingram, to recover damages or equitable compensation in respect of its alleged loss. As against the directors, Bilta claims damages for conspiracy or equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty. The conspiracy is alleged to have been an unlawful means conspiracy, and the unlawful means are the directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. As against Jetivia and Mr Brunschweiler, Bilta claims damages for conspiracy or compensation for dishonest assistance in the directors' breach of their fiduciary duties. Since the matter comes before the court on Jetivia's and Mr Brunschweiler's application for the claims against them to be summarily struck out or dismissed, it is to be assumed for present purposes that the factual allegations made in Bilta's amended particulars of claim are capable of proof, and there is no need to repeat the word "alleged" whenever referring to the defendants' conduct. The liquidators also pursue a separate claim for fraudulent trading under section 213 of IA 1986. Jetivia is a Swiss company and Mr Brunschweiler, who is resident in France, is its sole director.
  2. Bilta had two directors, Mr Nazir and Mr Chopra ("the directors"), who are the first and second defendants. Mr Chopra owned all the issued shares. Bilta was registered for the purposes of VAT. Its only trading activity, which took place between 22 April and 21 July 2009, was trading in European Emissions Trading Scheme Allowances ("EUAs"), which are commonly known as carbon credits. EUAs were treated as taxable supplies under the VAT Act 1994 until 31 July 2009. Since then they have been zero-rated. The VAT status of supplies of the EUAs at the relevant time explains Bilta's activities.
  3. In short, Bilta bought large numbers of EUAs from overseas suppliers, including Jetivia, free of VAT, and sold them in the UK with VAT to companies described as "first line buffers", which immediately sold them on. The price for which Bilta sold the EUAs was lower before VAT than the price at which it bought, and Bilta was therefore never going to be in a position to meet its liabilities to HM Revenue and Customs ("HMRC"). Bilta had minimal capital and was insolvent virtually from the outset. The money payable to Bilta, including the VAT due to HMRC, was either paid to Bilta and paid on by it to its overseas supplier, or was paid by the first line buffer (or a later company in the chain) directly to Bilta's supplier, or was otherwise paid to offshore accounts. At the end of the chain the EUAs would be resold to a company outside the UK, generating a right to a VAT refund. It is a familiar kind of carousel or missing trader fraud.
  4. Bilta was insolvent throughout the period of its trading in EUAs. In that three-month period, Bilta sold more than 5.7m EUAs for about £294m. Its liability for VAT on those transactions amounts to £38,733,444. It did not submit any VAT returns to HMRC. On the application of HMRC Mr Hellard and Mr Ingram were appointed provisional liquidators of Bilta on 29 September 2009. They commenced the company's claim against the defendants who were its directors and other parties, including the appellants. The company was compulsorily wound up on 25 November 2009. The proceedings were amended on 13 October 2011 to include the liquidators' claims under section 213 of IA 1986.

Because the appeal concerned an application by the defendants to strike out certain claims as disclosing no sustainable cause of action in law, the relevant facts had not been determined at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, for the purposes of the hearing and the subsequent appeals all of the facts alleged against the defendants were assumed to be true for the purposes of determining whether the claims were legally sustainable.

The defendants applied to strike out various claims against them on two different grounds.

Judgment

The decision was handed down in April 2015 after the original hearing had concluded in October of the previous year; an unusual length of time for the Supreme Court.

All seven judges agreed unanimously that the court's power to impose liability for fraudulent trading was extraterritorial. Relatively little judicial time was dedicated to the discussion of that subject in the judgments.

In relation to the question of attribution, all seven judges similarly agreed that "Where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, or of which its directors had notice, then the wrong-doing, or knowledge, of the directors cannot be attributed to the company as a defence to a claim brought against the directors by the company's liquidator, in the name of the company and/or on behalf of its creditors, for the loss suffered by the company as a result of the wrong-doing, even where the directors were the only directors and shareholders of the company, and even though the wrong-doing or knowledge of the directors may be attributed to the company in many other types of proceedings." [2]

However Lord Sumption, Lord Toulson and Lord Hodge dissented from the majority in relation to the scope of the "illegality defence".

Although it was not a point in issue in the case, Lord Neuberger further expounded that "section 172(3) [of the Companies Act 2006] cannot be defeated by the directors invoking the defence of ex turpi causa." [3]

Significance

English law had recently seen a number of judicial decisions relating to difficult issues of attribution of fraudulent conduct by a director to the company. This included the controversial decision of the House of Lords in Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq) [2009] UKHL 39 (30 July 2009), and the so-called "sole actor" exception. The Moore Stephens decision in turn had followed a number of other recent decisions in relation to the issue of illegality, including Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340; Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Inc [2014] UKSC 55 (29 October 2014) and Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47 (30 July 2014). Commentators had hoped that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jetivia v Bilta would resolve these issues. Unfortunately their Lordships declined to make an authoritative statement on illegality in English law. [4]

Although most commentators agree with the emphasis of the decision, and applaud the move away from Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens the case represents yet another missed opportunity to issue an authoritative statement on the thorny issue of illegality. [4] [5]

The test in Jetivia has been subsequently applied by the courts in relation to attribution on various occasions, including Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2019] UKSC 50 and Crown Prosecution Service v Aquila Advisory Limited.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liquidation</span> Winding-up of a company

Liquidation is the process in accounting by which a company is brought to an end. The assets and property of the business are redistributed. When a firm has been liquidated, it is sometimes referred to as wound-up or dissolved, although dissolution technically refers to the last stage of liquidation. The process of liquidation also arises when customs, an authority or agency in a country responsible for collecting and safeguarding customs duties, determines the final computation or ascertainment of the duties or drawback accruing on an entry.

Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.

Wrongful trading is a type of civil wrong found in UK insolvency law, under Section 214 Insolvency Act 1986. It was introduced to enable contributions to be obtained for the benefit of creditors from those responsible for mismanagement of the insolvent company. Under Australian insolvency law the equivalent concept is called "insolvent trading".

In company law, fraudulent trading is doing business with intent to defraud creditors.

In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets under such circumstances of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Liquidator is a person officially appointed to 'liquidate' a company or firm. Their duty is to ascertain and settle the liabilities of a company or a firm. If there are any surplus, then those are distributed to the contributories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom insolvency law</span> Law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

Re a Company [1990] BCC 526 is a UK insolvency law case, on the offence of fraudulent trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

<i>Moore Stephens v Stone Rolls Ltd (in liq)</i> 2009 UK legal case

Stone & Rolls Ltd v Moore Stephens[2009] UKHL 39 is a leading case relevant for UK company law and the law on fraud and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The House of Lords decided by a majority of three to two that where the director and sole shareholder of a closely held private company deceived the auditors with fraud carried out on all creditors, subsequently the creditors of the insolvent company would be barred from suing the auditors for negligence from the shoes of the company. The Lords reasoned that where the company was only identifiable with one person, the fraud of that person would be attributable to the company, and the "company" could not rely on its own illegal fraud when bringing a claim for negligence against any auditors. It was the last case to be argued before the House of Lords.

Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio", meaning "no cause of action arises from a wrong". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent to which an innocent party may recover any property already conveyed through the transaction. Hence, illegality raises important questions for English unjust enrichment law.

<i>Morphitis v Bernasconi</i>

Morphitis v Bernasconi[2003] EWCA Civ 289 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning fraudulent trading.

Re Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 180 is a UK company law case, concerning the meaning of a shadow director. It is sometimes incorrectly cited in sources as Re: Hydrodam.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands company law</span> National economic law

Cayman Islands company law is primarily codified in the Companies Law and the Limited Liability Companies Law, 2016, and to a lesser extent in the Securities and Investment Business Law. The Cayman Islands is a leading offshore financial centre, and financial services form a significant part of the economy of the Cayman Islands. Accordingly company law forms a much more prominent part of the law of the Cayman Islands than might otherwise be expected.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cayman Islands bankruptcy law</span>

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

<i>Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd</i>

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company cannot make any claim against a director for breach of duty if the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.

Provisional liquidation is a process which exists as part of the corporate insolvency laws of a number of common law jurisdictions whereby after the lodging of a petition for the winding-up of a company by the court, but before the court hears and determines the petition, the court may appoint a liquidator on a "provisional" basis. Unlike a conventional liquidator, a provisional liquidator does not assess claims against the company or try to distribute the company's assets to creditors, as the power to realise the assets comes after the court orders a liquidation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong insolvency law</span> Financial regulation in Hong Kong

Hong Kong insolvency law regulates the position of companies which are in financial distress and are unable to pay or provide for all of their debts or other obligations, and matters ancillary to and arising from financial distress. The law in this area is now primarily governed by the Companies Ordinance and the Companies Rules. Prior to 2012 Cap 32 was called the Companies Ordinance, but when the Companies Ordinance came into force in 2014, most of the provisions of Cap 32 were repealed except for the provisions relating to insolvency, which were retained and the statute was renamed to reflect its new principal focus.

<i>Brooks v Armstrong</i>

Brooks v Armstrong[2016] EWHC 2289 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) is a UK insolvency law case on wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

<i>Re MC Bacon Ltd</i> (No 2)

Re MC Bacon Ltd [1991] Ch 127 is a UK insolvency law case relating specifically to the recovery the legal costs of the liquidator in relation to an application to set aside a floating charge as an unfair preference.

<i>Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited</i> 2019 ruling by Supreme Court of the UK

Singularis Holdings Limited v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited[2019] UKSC 50 is a judicial decision of Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the duties owed by a bank where a person acting on behalf of a corporate customer of the bank directs the bank to transfer money out of the company's account as part of a fraudulent scheme.

Byers v Saudi National Bank[2022] EWCA Civ 43 is a decision of the English Court of Appeal in the long running litigation between the liquidators of SAAD Investments Company Limited and various parties relating to the alleged defrauding of the insolvent company by one of its principals.

References

  1. ↑ "Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd (In Liquidation) (2015)". Maitland Chambers. Archived from the original on 2 December 2015. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  2. ↑ Per Lord Neuberger, at paragraph 7.
  3. ↑ At paragraphs 18-20.
  4. 1 2 Frances Coulson (22 April 2015). "Supreme Court dismisses appeal from the Court of Appeal in Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others". LexisNexis. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
  5. ↑ Saleem Sheikh (24 April 2015). "Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd [2015] UKSA". Bloomsbury Professional. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.