HM Customs & Excise v Hare & Ors [1996] EWCA Civ 1351 (16 February 1996)

HM Customs & Excise v Hare & Ors [1996] EWCA Civ 1351 (16 February 1996)

The court held that, on the evidence, the companies were controlled by the defendants and used as vehicles for large-scale excise duty fraud, justifying the lifting of the corporate veil and treating the companies' assets as realisable property of the defendants. The court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] EWCA Civ 1351
Parties
Appellant: Avtar Singh Hare; Appellant: Sohan Singh Hare; Appellant: Kulwant Singh Hare; Intervenor: Saroup Singh Hare; Respondent: H. M. Customs and Excise; Receiver: Sara Dayman (receiver)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (dyson J) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed save for a stay on sale of non-depreciating or non-surplus goods
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Restraint Orders, Receivership, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Management of Company Assets, Criminal Proceeds, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Company Law Confiscation Orders Restraint Orders Receivership Piercing the Corporate Veil Management of Company Assets Criminal Proceeds +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avtar Singh Hare

Appellant

Sohan Singh Hare

Appellant

Kulwant Singh Hare

Appellant

Saroup Singh Hare

Intervenor

H. M. Customs and Excise

Respondent

Sara Dayman (receiver)

Receiver

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (dyson J) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over company assets under the Criminal Justice Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether company assets could be treated as realisable property of the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the corporate veil could be pierced in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, on the evidence, the companies were controlled by the defendants and used as vehicles for large-scale excise duty fraud, justifying the lifting of the corporate veil and treating the companies' assets as realisable property of the defendants. The court had jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over those assets. However, the sale of non-depreciating or non-surplus goods should be stayed pending further court directions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed save for a stay on sale of non-depreciating or non-surplus goods

Orders

  • Stay on sale of non-depreciating or non-surplus goods pending application by receiver for court's directions
  • No order as to costs except legal aid taxation of intervenor's costs and Customs and Excise to bear any separate costs of the receiver