Stodgell v Stodgell [2008] EWHC 1925 (Admin) (18 July 2008)

Stodgell v Stodgell [2008] EWHC 1925 (Admin) (18 July 2008)

On the facts, even making the most favourable assumptions for the wife (including that the child lives with her), the known assets are insufficient to satisfy the confiscation order, and all assets are pervaded by the proceeds of tax evasion. The state is the victim, and the legislative steer requires priority for the confiscation order. There is no realistic prospect of ancillary relief for the wife until the order is satisfied. The application for ancillary relief is adjourned generally and cannot proceed until after satisfaction of the confiscation order.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1925 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant/wife: Joselita Maria Pereira de Silva Stodgell; Defendant/husband: Colin Stodgell; Child: Ross Stodgell; Third Respondent: Felipe Stodgell; First Intervenor: RCPO (Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office); Receiver: Receiver; Second Intervenor: Sheikh Wallid Juffali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief and Child Residence Proceedings With Criminal Confiscation Order / Interlocutory Judgment on Adjournment of Ancillary Relief Pending Satisfaction of Confiscation Order
Outcome
Application for ancillary relief adjourned generally; no order for ancillary relief until confiscation order satisfied.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Confiscation Orders, Child Residence, Case Management, Priority of Claims, Hidden Assets
Family Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Ancillary Relief Confiscation Orders Child Residence Case Management Priority of Claims +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joselita Maria Pereira de Silva Stodgell

Applicant/wife

Colin Stodgell

Defendant/husband

Ross Stodgell

Child

Felipe Stodgell

Third Respondent

RCPO (Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office)

First Intervenor

Receiver

Receiver

Sheikh Wallid Juffali

Second Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief and Child Residence Proceedings With Criminal Confiscation Order / Interlocutory Judgment on Adjournment of Ancillary Relief Pending Satisfaction of Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the wife's claims for ancillary relief should be heard before satisfaction of the criminal confiscation order against the husband
  2. 2 Whether any provision can be made for the wife or child from restrained assets prior to satisfaction of the confiscation order
  3. 3 Whether there are hidden assets justifying further ancillary relief proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, even making the most favourable assumptions for the wife (including that the child lives with her), the known assets are insufficient to satisfy the confiscation order, and all assets are pervaded by the proceeds of tax evasion. The state is the victim, and the legislative steer requires priority for the confiscation order. There is no realistic prospect of ancillary relief for the wife until the order is satisfied. The application for ancillary relief is adjourned generally and cannot proceed until after satisfaction of the confiscation order.

Court Disposition

Application for ancillary relief adjourned generally; no order for ancillary relief until confiscation order satisfied.

Orders

  • Wife's claims for ancillary relief adjourned generally, only to be restored if and after the confiscation order is satisfied in full.
  • No positive orders made regarding child residence at this hearing; child residence and contact adjourned to a future hearing.