Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v Stodgell [2008] EWHC 2214 (Admin) (06 June 2008)

Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v Stodgell [2008] EWHC 2214 (Admin) (06 June 2008)

The court retains a discretion under s.77 Criminal Justice Act 1988 to allow payment of legal costs from restrained funds even after a confiscation order has crystallised, but this discretion must be exercised exceptionally and with primary regard to the statutory purpose of preserving assets for confiscation. In the special circumstances of this case, where the dispute is between government-controlled funds and the need for a fair hearing in family proceedings is paramount, a limited payment for legal costs from restrained funds is justified for both the husband (for the Jafali claim) and the wife (for maintenance pending suit and legal costs), subject to caps and future adjustment...

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2214 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office; Defendant/appellant: Colin Stodgell; Party: Wife (unnamed); Party: Child's Guardian; Third Respondent: Felipe Stodgell; Party: Receiver; Second Intervenor: Sheikh Wallid Juffali
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
High Court Administrative Division / Interlocutory Application Regarding Use of Restrained Funds for Legal Costs and Maintenance Pending Suit
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Restraint Orders, Ancillary Relief, Maintenance Pending Suit, Legal Aid, Children Act Proceedings
Criminal Law Family Law Civil Procedure Confiscation Orders Restraint Orders Ancillary Relief Maintenance Pending Suit Legal Aid +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Claimant/respondent

Colin Stodgell

Defendant/appellant

Wife (unnamed)

Party

Child's Guardian

Party

Felipe Stodgell

Third Respondent

Receiver

Party

Sheikh Wallid Juffali

Second Intervenor

Procedural Posture

High Court Administrative Division / Interlocutory Application Regarding Use of Restrained Funds for Legal Costs and Maintenance Pending Suit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrained funds subject to a crystallised confiscation order can be used to pay legal costs and maintenance pending suit for the defendant and his wife
  2. 2 Whether the court retains discretion to vary restraint orders post-crystallisation for legal expenses
  3. 3 Whether the wife is entitled to maintenance and legal costs from restrained funds given the conflict with confiscation provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The court retains a discretion under s.77 Criminal Justice Act 1988 to allow payment of legal costs from restrained funds even after a confiscation order has crystallised, but this discretion must be exercised exceptionally and with primary regard to the statutory purpose of preserving assets for confiscation. In the special circumstances of this case, where the dispute is between government-controlled funds and the need for a fair hearing in family proceedings is paramount, a limited payment for legal costs from restrained funds is justified for both the husband (for the Jafali claim) and the wife (for maintenance pending suit and legal costs), subject to caps and future adjustment...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Husband's legal costs for the Jafali claim to be paid from restrained funds, capped at £15,000 plus VAT, subject to reasonableness and accounting by solicitors.
  • Wife's maintenance pending suit restored to £1,213 per calendar month plus rent and utility bills, with an additional costs provision of £44,000 plus VAT to cover legal costs, subject to adjustment in ancillary relief proceedings.