Larkfield Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 521 (12 May 2010)

Larkfield Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 521 (12 May 2010)

The Judge erred in law by not applying conventional property and trust law principles to the question of beneficial ownership; there was no evidence or finding that Mr May was the beneficial owner of the Flat or that the loan for its purchase was a sham. The Flat is not realisable property of Mr May under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 521
Parties
Appellant/third Claimant: Larkfield Limited; Prosecutor/respondent: Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office; Receiver/respondent: Brandon Barnes; Defendant/respondent: Raymond George May
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Realisable Property, Beneficial Ownership, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Constructive and Resulting Trusts, Sham Transactions, Proceeds of Crime
Criminal Law Property Law Trusts Law Company Law Confiscation Orders Realisable Property Beneficial Ownership Piercing the Corporate Veil +3 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Larkfield Limited

Appellant/third Claimant

Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office

Prosecutor/respondent

Brandon Barnes

Receiver/respondent

Raymond George May

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Flat is 'realisable property' of Mr May under section 74(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in law by not applying conventional property and trust law principles in determining beneficial ownership
  3. 3 Whether the loan for the purchase of the Flat was a sham

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in law by not applying conventional property and trust law principles to the question of beneficial ownership; there was no evidence or finding that Mr May was the beneficial owner of the Flat or that the loan for its purchase was a sham. The Flat is not realisable property of Mr May under the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court declaring the Flat as realisable property of Mr May set aside
  • Larkfield's claim to beneficial ownership of the Flat reinstated