Capewell v Customs & Excise & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1628 (02 December 2004)

Capewell v Customs & Excise & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 1628 (02 December 2004)

The judge erred by failing to address whether the receivership continued to serve a necessary purpose and by postponing consideration of discharge until after costs assessment; the court should have considered whether the objectives justifying receivership persisted and whether the costs were proportionate to any ongoing benefit.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1628
Parties
Appellant: Robert Capewell; 1st Respondent: Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise; 2nd Respondent: Nigel Heath Sinclair (Court Appointed Receiver)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Refusing Discharge of Receiver in Criminal Restraint Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judge's approach found erroneous but no order for immediate discharge as receivership had already been terminated by subsequent order; parties invited to make submissions on costs.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Restraint Orders, Asset Forfeiture, Costs Assessment, Proceeds of Crime
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Receivership Restraint Orders Asset Forfeiture Costs Assessment Proceeds of Crime

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

Parties

Robert Capewell

Appellant

Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise

1st Respondent

Nigel Heath Sinclair (Court Appointed Receiver)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Order Refusing Discharge of Receiver in Criminal Restraint Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the receivership should have been discharged due to disproportionate costs and lack of ongoing purpose
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in postponing consideration of discharge until after assessment of costs
  3. 3 Whether the risk of dissipation justified continuation of the receivership

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by failing to address whether the receivership continued to serve a necessary purpose and by postponing consideration of discharge until after costs assessment; the court should have considered whether the objectives justifying receivership persisted and whether the costs were proportionate to any ongoing benefit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judge's approach found erroneous but no order for immediate discharge as receivership had already been terminated by subsequent order; parties invited to make submissions on costs.

Orders

  • No order for immediate discharge as receiver already discharged by subsequent order
  • Parties invited to make submissions on costs of receivership post-judgment