突破国家豁免屏障：英格兰法院援引《破产法》将国有债务人的伦敦地产直接判转债权人

Piercing the State Immunity Shield: English Court Orders Direct Transfer of State Debtor's London Property to Creditor Using Insolvency Act Powers

一、核心要点

/key takeaways/

（图片来源于网络）

English Court of Appeal has confirmed that English courts will deal robustly with attempts by award debtors to dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement, including where those assets are owned by a state-owned company.

英格兰上诉法院已明确，对于裁决债务人试图通过转移资产来阻碍裁决执行的行为（包括涉及国有企业资产的情形），英国法院将采取强有力的应对措施。

Various powers are available to the courts to enforce an award, including those under the English Insolvency Act 1986, to transfer a wrongfully dissipated asset directly to a creditor.

法院拥有多种权力来执行裁决，包括依据《1986年英格兰破产法》所赋予的权力，将不当转移的资产直接判转给债权人。  

The Court also provided authoritative guidance on the meaning of section 53(1)(b) Law of Property Act 1925 relating to the requirements for evidencing the existence of a trust – a question on which there was no previous binding authority.

此外，上诉法院就《1925年财产法》第53(1)(b)条关于证明信托存在所需证据要求之含义，提供了权威性指引——此问题此前并无具有约束力的先例。

二、案件概要

/Summary/

（图片来源于网络）

This alert summarises a recent judgment of the English Court of Appeal in the case of National Iranian Oil Company and another v. Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1211, which upheld the earlier judgment of Sir Nigel Teare in the Commercial Court, Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v. National Iranian Oil Company & Anor. [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm). Reed Smith represented the successful award creditor, Crescent Gas Corporation (CGC).

本文简述了英格兰上诉法院在“伊朗国家石油公司及另一当事人诉新月天然气有限公司”案(National Iranian Oil Company and another v. Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd)（[2025] EWCA Civ 1211）中的近期判决。该判决维持了商业法庭奈杰尔·泰尔爵士在一审（“新月天然气有限公司诉伊朗国家石油公司及另一当事人”案(Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v. National Iranian Oil Company & Anor.)，[2024] EWHC 835 (Comm)）中所作的裁决。瑞生律师事务所(Reed Smith)在此案中代表胜诉的裁决债权人新月天然气有限公司(CGC)。 

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed attempts by the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and the Retirement, Saving and Welfare Fund of Oil Industry Workers (the Retirement Fund) to overturn the enforcement of an arbitral award of US$2.4 billion plus interest against NIOC, the Iranian state-owned oil company. The Court of Appeal had to determine various issues of English trust and land law on which there was no previous authoritative decision and which arose from the first instance judgment.

上诉法院在判决中，驳回了伊朗国家石油公司(NIOC)及石油工业工人退休、储蓄与福利基金（下称“退休基金”）试图推翻针对伊朗国家石油公司的24亿美元仲裁裁决（含利息）执行程序的诉求。上诉法院需要就一审判决所引发的、此前未有权威定论的英格兰信托法与土地法中的若干争议问题作出裁决。

The judgment is therefore significant not only because of the legal issues it determines, but also because it highlights the powers and mechanisms available to the courts to assist with the enforcement of arbitral awards, including against state-owned entities. In the present case, CGC was able to use powers available under the English insolvency regime to secure the direct transfer of a high-value commercial property to it, partially satisfying the arbitral award.

因此，该判决意义重大，不仅在于其解决的法律问题，更在于其凸显了法院为协助仲裁裁决执行（包括针对国有实体）所能运用的权力与机制。在本案中，CGC得以利用英格兰破产制度下的权力，成功确保了将一高价值商业地产直接转让予己，部分清偿了仲裁裁决。

三、背景：国有债务人与伦敦核心资产

/Background: A state-owned debtor and a prime London asset/

Richard T. Boylan

（图片来源于网络）

In 2021, CGC obtained a US$2.4 billion award of damages against NIOC, resulting from its failure to perform a long-term gas supply agreement to deliver gas from the Persian Gulf to the UAE.

2021年，CGC因NIOC未能履行一份从波斯湾向阿联酋输送天然气的长期天然气供应协议，获得了针对NIOC的24亿美元损害赔偿裁决。

In August 2022, CGC obtained permission to enforce the award in England. However, within days of being served with the enforcement order, NIOC transferred NIOC House – a commercial property it had purchased in 1975 and used as its London headquarters – to the Retirement Fund, a related entity that operated its pension fund (the August Transfer). After discovering the August Transfer when it sought to register an interim charging order against NIOC House, CGC issued a claim in the Commercial Court, London, on the basis that the August Transfer had been carried out to put the property beyond CGC’s reach and was thus a transaction to defraud a creditor under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (s423).

2022年8月，CGC获准在英格兰执行该裁决。然而，在收到执行令数日内，NIOC便将其于1975年购入并用作伦敦总部的一处商业地产——NIOC大厦，转让给了退休基金即负责运营养老基金的一个关联实体（此次转让即“八月转让”）。当CGC试图针对NIOC大厦申请登记临时押记令时发现了该转让行为，随即在伦敦商业法庭提起诉讼，主张“八月转让”旨在使该资产脱离CGC的可执行范围，属于《1986年破产法》第423条规定的欺诈债权人的交易（第423条）。

At first instance, NIOC and the Retirement Fund raised a number of English and Iranian law defences, including that NIOC held the property on an English law trust for the Retirement Fund, such that the August Transfer merely transferred the legal title to the property to the true beneficial owner and was not caught by s423. NIOC and the Retirement Fund relied, inter alia, on two documents from 2019 that purported to evidence the trust: a commercial mortgage and an associated certificate of title (the 2019 Documents), which stated that NIOC held the legal title and the Retirement Fund the beneficial interest. Importantly, the mortgage was executed by NIOC acting by its attorney, Naft Trading and Technology Co Ltd (NTT), a subsidiary of the Retirement Fund, and the certificate of title was signed by NIOC’s solicitors.

在一审中，NIOC和退休基金提出了若干依据英格兰法和伊朗法的抗辩理由，其中包括：NIOC是基于一项英格兰法下的信托为退休基金持有该房产，因此“八月转让”仅是将法定所有权转让给了真正的实益所有权人，并不受制于《破产法》第423条。NIOC与退休基金尤其依赖两份据称可证明该信托存在的2019年文件：一份商业抵押协议及一份相关的产权证明（合称“2019年文件”），其中载明NIOC持有法定所有权，而退休基金持有实益权益。关键在于，该抵押协议由NIOC通过其代理人——退休基金的子公司Naft Trading and Technology Co Ltd (NTT)——签署，而产权证明则由NIOC的律师行签署。

Sir Nigel Teare, sitting in the Commercial Court, rejected all of NIOC’s defences. In relation to the English law trust argument, he accepted that the 2019 Documents objectively manifested a declaration of trust, but held the trust was not enforceable because the writings were signed by NIOC’s agents, NTT, and its solicitors, rather than NIOC itself, as required by section 53(1)(b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA). He proceeded to find that NIOC had transferred NIOC House for the purpose of evading the award debt and thus to defraud a creditor under s423, and he exercised the powers available pursuant to s423 by ordering that NIOC House be transferred directly to CGC to satisfy the award.

商业法庭的奈杰尔·泰尔爵士驳回了NIOC的所有抗辩理由。关于英格兰法信托的论点，他认可“2019年文件”在客观上显示了一项信托声明，但判定该信托不可强制执行，因为根据《1925年财产法》(LPA)第53(1)(b)条的要求，文件是由NIOC的代理人NTT及其律师行签署，而非由NIOC本身。他进而认定，NIOC转移NIOC大厦的目的是为了逃避裁决债务，因而构成《破产法》第423条下的欺诈债权人行为，并据此行使了第423条赋予的权力，下令将NIOC大厦直接转让给CGC以清偿裁决债务。

NIOC and the Retirement Fund appealed on three grounds:

1. Section 53(1)(b) of the LPA, properly construed, provided that an agent was a person capable of providing the necessary written evidence of a trust over land;

2. Alternatively, the 2019 Documents had been signed “by” NIOC on the basis that a corporate entity could only act by way of agents; and

3. That, even absent written evidence of the trust, NIOC and the Retirement Fund could rely on the trust to defeat a creditor claim under s423.

NIOC与退休基金基于三点理由提出上诉：

1. 对《财产法》第53(1)(b)条的正确解释应为，代理人属于能够提供土地信托必要书面证据的主体；

2. 或者，鉴于公司实体只能通过代理人行事，“2019年文件”应被视为“由”NIOC签署；

3. 即使缺乏信托的书面证据，NIOC与退休基金仍可依赖该信托来对抗依据第423条提出的债权人主张。

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the first-instance s423 relief.

上诉法院驳回了上诉，从而维持了一审根据《破产法》第423条给予的救济。

四、法院裁决要点总结

/A summary of the Court’s findings/

Trust formalities

 信托形式要求

The Court of Appeal confirmed two important points on trust formalities for land in England and Wales.

上诉法院就英格兰和威尔士土地信托的形式要求确认了两个要点。

First, it held that section 53(1)(b) LPA requires “some writing signed by some person who is able to declare such trust”, and that this does not include signature by an agent. The Court reasoned that where Parliament intended to permit signature by an agent, it said so expressly (as it did in s53(1)(a) and (c) LPA). Reading s53(1)(b) in context and in light of its purpose to guard against fraud in claims over land, the Court of Appeal concluded that a declaration of trust must be evidenced by writing signed by the settlor or legal owner (e.g. the trustee), not by an agent (in NIOC’s case, NTT and its solicitors).

首先，法院认定，《财产法》第53(1)(b)条要求“由能够声明此类信托的某人签署的某些书面文件”，而这不涵盖由代理人签署。法院的理据是，当议会意图允许代理人签署时，会作出明确表述（正如其在《财产法》第53(1)(a)和(c)条中所为）。结合《财产法》第53(1)(b)条的上下文并考虑到该条款旨在防范土地权益主张中的欺诈行为，上诉法院得出结论：信托声明必须由设立人或法定所有人（例如受托人）签署的书面文件证明，而不能由代理人（在NIOC案中，即NTT及NIOC的律师行）签署的书面文件证明。

Second, the Court rejected the proposition that the mortgage and certificate were signed “by” NIOC. For English companies, execution must follow the Companies Act 2006 regime; for overseas companies such as NIOC, the Overseas Companies Regulations prescribe how a document is executed “by” the company. The Court agreed with the Commercial Court that signature by a company’s attorney did not constitute signature “by” the company under the relevant companies regime for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 53(1)(b) LPA, and therefore the 2019 Documents were not signed “by” NIOC.

其次，法院驳回了抵押协议和产权证明是“由”NIOC签署的主张。对于英格兰公司，签署必须遵循《2006年公司法》的规定；对于像NIOC这样的海外公司，《海外公司条例》规定了文件如何才算是“由”公司签署。上诉法院同意商业法庭的观点，为满足《财产法》第53(1)(b)条的要求，根据相关公司制度，由公司代理人进行的签署不构成“由”公司签署，因此“2019年文件”并非“由”NIOC签署。

Enforcement through s423

通过第423条执行

 On the third ground, the Court of Appeal considered whether NIOC and the Retirement Fund could rely on the asserted but unevidenced trust to defeat the claim on the basis that the August Transfer was not a transaction at an undervalue under s423.

关于第三点上诉理由，上诉法院考虑了NIOC与退休基金是否可以依赖其主张但缺乏证据的信托，来辩称“八月转让”不构成《破产法》第423条下的低价交易从而使得执行主张无法成立。

By a majority, the Court held that the alleged trust over NIOC House was unenforceable by the purported beneficiary, the Retirement Fund, due to the absence of written evidence, and it should equally not be enforceable against a third-party creditor. NIOC’s obligations to the purported beneficiary were, at best, “moral” or conscience-based and incapable of being compelled, and were not, in money or money’s worth, equivalent to the market value of a prime central London commercial freehold. Since the August Transfer depleted assets otherwise available to creditors and delivered to the Fund something of substantial value for no, or significantly insufficient, consideration, it constituted a transaction at an undervalue for the purpose of s423. As a result, the Commercial Court’s order that NIOC House be transferred to CGC in partial satisfaction of the arbitral award was upheld.

法院以多数意见裁定，由于缺乏书面证据，据称的针对NIOC大厦的信托对于声称的受益人（退休基金）而言是不可强制执行的，该信托同样也不应能对抗第三方债权人。NIOC对声称受益人的义务，充其量是“道义上”或基于良心的，无法通过法律强制履行，并且在金钱或金钱价值上，并不等同于伦敦市中心优质商业地产永久产权的市场价值。由于“八月转让”耗散了本可用于清偿债权人的资产，并在未提供对价或对价严重不足的情况下，将具有重大价值的资产交付给了该基金，因此其构成了第423条目的下的低价交易。故而，商业法庭将NIOC大厦转让给CGC以部分执行仲裁裁决的命令得以维持。

Conclusion 

结论

The Court of Appeal’s decision sends a clear message that it will robustly deal with attempts to dissipate assets in order to avoid enforcement, including in relation to assets affiliated with State entities. It also follows from the judgment that a trust in respect of land must be properly evidenced and that a mere assertion that the trust exists may be insufficient to defeat a claim by a creditor seeking to enforce against that land.

上诉法院的判决传递出一个明确信号：法院将果断处理为规避执行而试图转移资产的行为，包括涉及国有实体关联资产的情形。该判决还表明，涉及土地的信托必须有适当的证据证明，仅仅声称存在信托可能不足以挫败债权人试图对该土地执行裁决的主张。