Akers v Samba Financial Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Akers v Samba Financial Group [2017] UKSC 6, [2017] AC 424 is a judicial decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom relating to the conflict of laws, trust law and insolvency law.[1][2][3]
Akers v Samba Financial Group | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court |
Full case name | (1) Stephen Akers, Mark Byers, Hugh Dickson (as joint liquidators of Saad Investments Company Limited) and (2) Saad Investments Company Limited (in liquidation) v Samba Financial Group |
Decided | 1 February 2017 |
Citation(s) | [2017] BCLC 151 [2017] UKSC 6 [2017] BPIR 263 [2017] WLR(D) 57 [2017] 2 WLR 713 [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 97 [2017] 2 All ER 799 [2017] WLR 1261 [2017] AC 424 [2017] WTLR 373 |
Transcript(s) | BAILII UKSC |
Case history | |
Appealed from | [2014] EWCA Civ 1516 [2014] EWHC 540 (Ch) |
Subsequent action(s) | Byers v Saudi National Bank [2024] UKSC 51 [2022] EWCA Civ 43 [2021] EWHC 60 (Ch) |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Lord Neuberger Lord Mance Lord Sumption Lord Toulson Lord Collins |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Lord Mance |
Concurrence | Lord Neuberger, Lord Sumption and Lord Collins |
Dissent | None |
Keywords | |
|
The key issues in the litigation evolved significantly during the appeals process, meaning that the issues addressed by the Supreme Court differed from those considered by the Court of Appeal, which in turn were different from those which were considered at first instance by the Vice Chancellor. However, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court the core issue was whether a transfer of trust property to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, which extinguished the beneficial interest of a company in liquidation, was void as a "disposition of property" after the commencement of winding up.
The case involved consideration of several issues of law which the Supreme Court described as "novel and difficult".[4]
The appeal was heard against an application to determine a preliminary issue. Accordingly, for the purposes of the hearing the allegations were assumed to be true. The Supreme Court held that the claim should be either stayed or struck out, but deferred making an order as to which pending further representations from the parties.