Chellapermal v The Financial Conduct Authority & Ors

Chellapermal v The Financial Conduct Authority & Ors

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it seeks to re-litigate a proprietary claim already determined by the Crown Court, attempts to circumvent the statutory appeal process under POCA, and constitutes undesirable forum shopping.

Parties
Claimant: Mrs Shamilla Chellapermal; First Defendant: The Financial Conduct Authority; Second Defendant: Mr Dharam Prakash Gopee; Third Defendant: Miss Camilla Chellapermal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out as abuse of process
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Proceeds of Crime, Restraint Orders, Jurisdiction, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Equity Criminal Law Abuse of Process Issue Estoppel Proceeds of Crime Restraint Orders Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Shamilla Chellapermal

Claimant

The Financial Conduct Authority

First Defendant

Mr Dharam Prakash Gopee

Second Defendant

Miss Camilla Chellapermal

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is an abuse of process for re-litigating an issue already decided
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to determine proprietary claims subject to a Restraint Order
  3. 3 Whether the claim seeks to bypass the statutory scheme under POCA

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out as an abuse of process because it seeks to re-litigate a proprietary claim already determined by the Crown Court, attempts to circumvent the statutory appeal process under POCA, and constitutes undesirable forum shopping.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • Claim struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)
  • Application to adjourn refused