National Crime Agency v Leahy & Ors [2020] EWHC 1242 (QB) (18 May 2020)

National Crime Agency v Leahy & Ors [2020] EWHC 1242 (QB) (18 May 2020)

The balance of convenience is substantially in favour of continuing the Property Freezing Order; the risks to the statutory function of POCA and uncertainty in property valuation outweigh the financial detriment to the applicants. Specific disclosure upon request and costs budgeting are appropriate case management orders.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1242 (QB)
Parties
Respondent/claimant: National Crime Agency; Applicant/defendant: Richard Joseph Leahy; Applicant/defendant: Mortimer Property Investments Limited; Applicant/defendant: Eldergrand Limited; Applicant/defendant: Mortimer Commercial Investments Limited; Applicant/defendant: Mortimer Holdings Limited; Applicant/defendant: Itradent Limited; Applicant/defendant: PLI UK Limited; Applicant/defendant: Capital House Bradbourne Limited; Applicant/defendant: Hassock Wood Limited; Applicant/defendant: Future House Limited; Applicant/defendant: Mortimer House Limited; Applicant/defendant: Caxton Street North Limited; Applicant/defendant: Mortimer Solutions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery Order Application Under POCA / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order; Case Management Directions
Outcome
Application to discharge Property Freezing Order refused; case management directions given.
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Order, Civil Recovery, Disclosure, Costs Budgeting, Balance of Convenience
Civil Litigation Proceeds of Crime Property Law Property Freezing Order Civil Recovery Disclosure Costs Budgeting Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

National Crime Agency

Respondent/claimant

Richard Joseph Leahy

Applicant/defendant

Mortimer Property Investments Limited

Applicant/defendant

Eldergrand Limited

Applicant/defendant

Mortimer Commercial Investments Limited

Applicant/defendant

Mortimer Holdings Limited

Applicant/defendant

Itradent Limited

Applicant/defendant

PLI UK Limited

Applicant/defendant

Capital House Bradbourne Limited

Applicant/defendant

Hassock Wood Limited

Applicant/defendant

Future House Limited

Applicant/defendant

Mortimer House Limited

Applicant/defendant

Caxton Street North Limited

Applicant/defendant

Mortimer Solutions Limited

Applicant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery Order Application Under POCA / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order; Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Property Freezing Order should be discharged or varied
  2. 2 Appropriate disclosure regime for contested civil recovery proceedings
  3. 3 Costs budgeting in Part 8 proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience is substantially in favour of continuing the Property Freezing Order; the risks to the statutory function of POCA and uncertainty in property valuation outweigh the financial detriment to the applicants. Specific disclosure upon request and costs budgeting are appropriate case management orders.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge Property Freezing Order refused; case management directions given.

Orders

  • Property Freezing Order to continue over 41 properties.
  • Specific disclosure upon request following simultaneous exchange of evidence.