National Crime Agency v Simkus

National Crime Agency v Simkus

The respondent's application for a further variation of the exclusion in the Property Freezing Order to cover additional legal expenses was refused because the issue had already been judicially determined by McGowan J, and there was no basis to revisit the decision. The NCA was entitled to its costs of resisting the application, but the costs order was discounted by 50% to reflect the NCA's significant non-disclosure in the ex parte application for the PFO.

Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; Respondent: Gediminas Simkus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Recovery / Proceeds of Crime / Costs Determination After Judgment on Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order
Outcome
Respondent's application for variation of exclusion refused; NCA awarded costs subject to 50% reduction for non-disclosure.
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Order, Legal Expenses, Costs Orders, Civil Recovery Proceedings
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Property Freezing Order Legal Expenses Costs Orders Civil Recovery Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Gediminas Simkus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Recovery / Proceeds of Crime / Costs Determination After Judgment on Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to a variation of the exclusion in the Property Freezing Order to cover additional legal expenses already incurred
  2. 2 Whether the National Crime Agency is entitled to its costs after successfully resisting the discharge of the Property Freezing Order, and if so, in what amount given the finding of non-disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's application for a further variation of the exclusion in the Property Freezing Order to cover additional legal expenses was refused because the issue had already been judicially determined by McGowan J, and there was no basis to revisit the decision. The NCA was entitled to its costs of resisting the application, but the costs order was discounted by 50% to reflect the NCA's significant non-disclosure in the ex parte application for the PFO.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for variation of exclusion refused; NCA awarded costs subject to 50% reduction for non-disclosure.

Orders

  • Respondent's application for variation of exclusion in the PFO refused.
  • Respondent to pay NCA's costs of and occasioned by the application to discharge the PFO, assessed at £3,460 after 50% discount for non-disclosure.