National Crime Agency v Abacha [2015] EWHC 357 (Admin) (21 January 2015)

National Crime Agency v Abacha [2015] EWHC 357 (Admin) (21 January 2015)

The court held that the statutory requirements for continuation of the prohibition order were satisfied based on the evidence provided, and that disclosure of the letters of request was not necessary for the fair disposal of the application due to sufficient evidence already available and the confidentiality of inter-State communications. The application to vary the order to allow payment of legal costs from frozen assets was refused as alternative funding was available and it would not be just to allow the variation.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 357 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; Defendant: Abacha
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Asset Freezing / Mutual Legal Assistance / Interlocutory Applications: Continuation of Prohibition Order, Disclosure, and Variation for Legal Costs
Outcome
Applications for disclosure and variation refused; continuation of prohibition order granted; costs awarded against specified respondents; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Asset Freezing, Mutual Legal Assistance, Disclosure, Legal Costs, Confidentiality of Inter State Communications
Criminal Law Civil Procedure International Law Proceeds of Crime Asset Freezing Mutual Legal Assistance Disclosure Legal Costs +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Abacha

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Asset Freezing / Mutual Legal Assistance / Interlocutory Applications: Continuation of Prohibition Order, Disclosure, and Variation for Legal Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibition order freezing assets should be continued
  2. 2 Whether the letters of request for mutual legal assistance must be disclosed to the respondents
  3. 3 Whether the prohibition order should be varied to allow payment of legal costs from frozen assets

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statutory requirements for continuation of the prohibition order were satisfied based on the evidence provided, and that disclosure of the letters of request was not necessary for the fair disposal of the application due to sufficient evidence already available and the confidentiality of inter-State communications. The application to vary the order to allow payment of legal costs from frozen assets was refused as alternative funding was available and it would not be just to allow the variation.

Court Disposition

Applications for disclosure and variation refused; continuation of prohibition order granted; costs awarded against specified respondents; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Prohibition order to continue in force.
  • Application for disclosure of letters of request refused.