National Crime Agency v Azam & Ors (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 3573 (QB) (30 October 2014)

National Crime Agency v Azam & Ors (No. 2) [2014] EWHC 3573 (QB) (30 October 2014)

Kalsoom did not satisfy the requirements of s.266(4) POCA as she did not take steps in reliance on receiving Thurza Court, nor was there detriment linked to such steps. The making of a CRO was not incompatible with her rights under A1P1 ECHR. The statutory scheme required the making of a CRO in respect of Thurza Court and Wheatash Road, despite her innocence and hardship.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3573
Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; First Respondent: Amir Azam; Second Respondent: Kalsoom Sanam (formerly Kalsoom Amir)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Proceedings (poca Part 5) / Judgment After Part 2 Trial on Statutory Defence and Proprietary Claims
Outcome
Statutory defence under s.266(4) POCA failed; CRO made in respect of Thurza Court and Wheatash Road.
Legal Topics
Civil Recovery Order, Statutory Defence Under POCA S.266, Ancillary Relief After Foreign Divorce, Property Rights of Innocent Spouse, Human Rights (a1 P1 Echr)
Proceeds of Crime Family Law Civil Procedure Civil Recovery Order Statutory Defence Under POCA S.266 Ancillary Relief After Foreign Divorce Property Rights of Innocent Spouse Human Rights (a1 P1 Echr)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Amir Azam

First Respondent

Kalsoom Sanam (formerly Kalsoom Amir)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Proceedings (poca Part 5) / Judgment After Part 2 Trial on Statutory Defence and Proprietary Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Respondent (Kalsoom) satisfied the statutory defence under s.266(4) POCA for Thurza Court
  2. 2 Whether any provision in a recovery order would be incompatible with the Second Respondent's rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the Second Respondent had a proprietary interest in Thurza Court and Wheatash Road that should defeat the CRO

Ratio Decidendi

Kalsoom did not satisfy the requirements of s.266(4) POCA as she did not take steps in reliance on receiving Thurza Court, nor was there detriment linked to such steps. The making of a CRO was not incompatible with her rights under A1P1 ECHR. The statutory scheme required the making of a CRO in respect of Thurza Court and Wheatash Road, despite her innocence and hardship.

Court Disposition

Statutory defence under s.266(4) POCA failed; CRO made in respect of Thurza Court and Wheatash Road.

Orders

  • Civil Recovery Order made vesting Thurza Court and Wheatash Road in the Trustee for Civil Recovery.
  • Application to amend Points of Defence to raise new A1P1 argument refused.