Revenue & Customs v Cozens & Ors [2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch) (08 November 2011)

Revenue & Customs v Cozens & Ors [2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch) (08 November 2011)

There is a good arguable case that Mr Cozens was knowingly involved in a fraudulent inward diversion scheme; there is actual evidence and reasonable inference of assets under his control; there is a real risk of dissipation of those assets; and no material non-disclosure by HMRC justifies discharge of the order. Therefore, the freezing injunction should be continued.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2782 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs; First Defendant: John Paul Cozens; Second Defendant: Toby Price; Defendants: 35 Other Defendants
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Application to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing injunction against Mr Cozens continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Asset Disclosure, Excise Duty Fraud, Limitation Periods, Material Non Disclosure, Risk of Dissipation of Assets
Civil Procedure Tax Law Freezing Injunctions Asset Disclosure Excise Duty Fraud Limitation Periods Material Non Disclosure Risk of Dissipation of Assets

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Claimant

John Paul Cozens

First Defendant

Toby Price

Second Defendant

35 Other Defendants

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction Application in Civil Proceedings / Application to Discharge/continue Worldwide Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the freezing order against Mr Cozens should be continued
  2. 2 Whether there is a good arguable case against Mr Cozens
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence of assets to justify a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

There is a good arguable case that Mr Cozens was knowingly involved in a fraudulent inward diversion scheme; there is actual evidence and reasonable inference of assets under his control; there is a real risk of dissipation of those assets; and no material non-disclosure by HMRC justifies discharge of the order. Therefore, the freezing injunction should be continued.

Court Disposition

Freezing injunction against Mr Cozens continued

Orders

  • The worldwide freezing order against Mr Cozens is continued; the precise form of the injunction to be determined after hearing counsel.