Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors [2009] EWHC 1560 (Ch) (01 July 2009)

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors [2009] EWHC 1560 (Ch) (01 July 2009)

The court has both statutory and inherent jurisdiction to set aside exclusion orders for legal expenses if it is satisfied that the person has free assets available, and the Practice Direction is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Assets released under a compromise are free assets for this purpose. All four exclusion orders are set aside as Mr Szepietowski had substantial free assets available to pay legal costs.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1560 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Serious Organised Crime Agency; First Defendant: John Szepietowski; Third Defendant: Countess UK; Fourth Defendant: Countess BVI
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Exclusion Orders
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Exclusion Orders, Legal Expenses, Practice Directions, Civil Recovery, Freezing Orders
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Exclusion Orders Legal Expenses Practice Directions Civil Recovery Freezing Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant

John Szepietowski

First Defendant

Countess UK

Third Defendant

Countess BVI

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Proceedings / Application to Set Aside Exclusion Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to set aside exclusion orders for legal expenses under POCA 2002 and the Practice Direction
  2. 2 Whether assets released under a compromise can be considered 'free assets' for the purpose of setting aside exclusions
  3. 3 Whether the Practice Direction is inconsistent with the statutory scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The court has both statutory and inherent jurisdiction to set aside exclusion orders for legal expenses if it is satisfied that the person has free assets available, and the Practice Direction is not inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Assets released under a compromise are free assets for this purpose. All four exclusion orders are set aside as Mr Szepietowski had substantial free assets available to pay legal costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • All four existing exclusion orders are set aside in full.