National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 728 (Admin) (08 April 2016)

National Crime Agency v Simkus [2016] EWHC 728 (Admin) (08 April 2016)

The respondent's application for a further variation of the exclusion in the Property Freezing Order was refused because the issue had already been judicially determined by McGowan J and not appealed, and there was no basis to revisit the same application. The NCA was awarded its costs of the application, subject to a 50% discount to reflect its significant but not egregious non-disclosure on the ex parte application for the PFO.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 728 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: National Crime Agency; Respondent: Gediminas Simkus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Administrative Court Costs Ruling / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following Dismissal of Application to Discharge Property Freezing Order
Outcome
Respondent's application for variation of exclusion refused; NCA awarded costs subject to discount.
Legal Topics
Property Freezing Orders, Legal Expenses Exclusions, Costs Orders, Non Disclosure, Civil Recovery
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Property Freezing Orders Legal Expenses Exclusions Costs Orders Non Disclosure Civil Recovery

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Crime Agency

Claimant

Gediminas Simkus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Court Costs Ruling / Post Judgment Costs Determination Following Dismissal of 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 following successful resistance of the application to discharge 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 was refused because the issue had already been judicially determined by McGowan J and not appealed, and there was no basis to revisit the same application. The NCA was awarded its costs of the application, subject to a 50% discount to reflect its significant but not egregious non-disclosure on the ex parte application for the PFO.

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for variation of exclusion refused; NCA awarded costs subject to discount.

Orders

  • Respondent's application for variation of exclusion in PFO refused.
  • NCA awarded costs of £3,460 (50% of total assessed costs) against the respondent, reflecting a discount for non-disclosure.