Capewell v Customs & Excise & Ors

Capewell v Customs & Excise & Ors

The judge erred in postponing consideration of discharge of the receivership until after a formal costs assessment under CPR 69. The correct approach was to consider whether the receivership continued to serve a valid purpose and whether its costs were proportionate, based on the material before the court. Since the receivership was ultimately discharged, no order was made on the substantive appeal, but the court indicated that the costs after 1 June 2004 should not fall on the defendant’s estate.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
No order on the substantive appeal; consequential orders on costs adjourned for further submissions.
Legal Topics
Receivership, Restraint Orders, Asset Management, Costs Assessment, Confiscation Proceedings
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Receivership Restraint Orders Asset Management Costs Assessment Confiscation 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

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 discharge until assessment of costs under CPR 69
  3. 3 Whether the receiver’s costs should be recoverable from the defendant’s assets after a certain date

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in postponing consideration of discharge of the receivership until after a formal costs assessment under CPR 69. The correct approach was to consider whether the receivership continued to serve a valid purpose and whether its costs were proportionate, based on the material before the court. Since the receivership was ultimately discharged, no order was made on the substantive appeal, but the court indicated that the costs after 1 June 2004 should not fall on the defendant’s estate.

Court Disposition

No order on the substantive appeal; consequential orders on costs adjourned for further submissions.

Orders

  • Receivership already discharged; no order made on discharge.
  • Further submissions invited on costs, particularly as to whether receiver’s costs after 1 June 2004 should be recoverable from the defendant’s estate.