National Crime Agency v Leahy & Ors

National Crime Agency v Leahy & Ors

The balance of convenience is substantially in favour of continuing the Property Freezing Order. The detriment to the Leahy defendants does not outweigh the risk to the statutory function of POCA and the potential for Mr Leahy to benefit from property appreciation if the order is discharged. The application to discharge the PFO is refused. Specific disclosure upon request, following simultaneous exchange of evidence, is the fair and proportionate order. Costs budgeting is appropriate given the complexity and scale of the case.

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 (proceeds of Crime) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order and Case Management Directions
Outcome
Application to discharge Property Freezing Order refused; case management directions given.
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Orders, Civil Recovery Orders, Disclosure, Costs Budgeting
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Property Law Property Freezing Orders Civil Recovery Orders Disclosure Costs Budgeting

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 6
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 (proceeds of Crime) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order and Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Property Freezing Order should be discharged or varied under section 245B of POCA
  2. 2 Appropriate disclosure procedure under CPR Part 8 for contested civil recovery proceedings
  3. 3 Whether costs budgeting should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience is substantially in favour of continuing the Property Freezing Order. The detriment to the Leahy defendants does not outweigh the risk to the statutory function of POCA and the potential for Mr Leahy to benefit from property appreciation if the order is discharged. The application to discharge the PFO is refused. Specific disclosure upon request, following simultaneous exchange of evidence, is the fair and proportionate order. Costs budgeting is appropriate given the complexity and scale of the case.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Property Freezing Order to continue.
  • Specific disclosure upon request after simultaneous exchange of evidence.