Crown Prosecution Service v MN

Crown Prosecution Service v MN

Where matrimonial assets are subject to a confiscation order, the court must ensure the order is satisfied in full before considering the division of any residue between the spouses. The wife's reasonable needs are to be met, but she is not entitled to retain assets representing the proceeds of crime. The appointment of a receiver is appropriate if the defendant fails to realise assets within a set period, and the costs of the receiver should be borne by the defendant. Costs orders should reflect the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings.

Parties
Applicant/intervener: Crown Prosecution Service; Defendant/respondent/husband: MN; Petitioner/wife: SN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Ancillary Relief and Appointment of Receiver (criminal/family) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Ancillary relief granted with clean break; wife awarded specified assets and lump sums; receiver to be appointed if husband fails to realise assets; husband to pay three-quarters of Crown's costs.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Confiscation Orders, Division of Matrimonial Assets, Appointment of Receiver
Family Law Criminal Law Ancillary Relief Confiscation Orders Division of Matrimonial Assets Appointment of Receiver

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Prosecution Service

Applicant/intervener

MN

Defendant/respondent/husband

SN

Petitioner/wife

Procedural Posture

Ancillary Relief and Appointment of Receiver (criminal/family) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should matrimonial assets be divided where a confiscation order exists against one spouse?
  2. 2 Should a receiver be appointed to realise assets to satisfy a confiscation order?
  3. 3 What is the proper allocation of costs in such proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

Where matrimonial assets are subject to a confiscation order, the court must ensure the order is satisfied in full before considering the division of any residue between the spouses. The wife's reasonable needs are to be met, but she is not entitled to retain assets representing the proceeds of crime. The appointment of a receiver is appropriate if the defendant fails to realise assets within a set period, and the costs of the receiver should be borne by the defendant. Costs orders should reflect the conduct of the parties and the outcome of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Ancillary relief granted with clean break; wife awarded specified assets and lump sums; receiver to be appointed if husband fails to realise assets; husband to pay three-quarters of Crown's costs.

Orders

  • Wife to receive Holbein Gardens, chattels, a lump sum of £28,500, and a further lump sum of £25,000 or one-quarter of the residue, whichever is larger.
  • Husband given until January 2006 to realise Windingbrook Lane and Austin Street; if he fails, receiver to be appointed with costs, disbursements, and fees paid out of assets.