Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office [2010] EWCA Civ 285 (18 March 2010)

Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office [2010] EWCA Civ 285 (18 March 2010)

The court held that jurisdiction existed to appoint a management receiver over property adjudicated as realisable property, even where a third party claims ownership, and that the judge's exercise of discretion in appointing the receiver was not erroneous given the need to preserve the property's value and the lack of timely action by the third party.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 285
Parties
Appellant / Interested Party: Stephen Lamb; Respondent / Applicant: The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office; Defendant: Stephen Michael Pigott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Management Receivership, Realisable Property, Third Party Interests, Restraint Orders
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Confiscation Orders Management Receivership Realisable Property Third Party Interests Restraint Orders

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Lamb

Appellant / Interested Party

The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Respondent / Applicant

Stephen Michael Pigott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to appoint a management receiver over property subject to a third-party ownership claim
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in exercising discretion to appoint a management receiver pending adjudication of third-party interests

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that jurisdiction existed to appoint a management receiver over property adjudicated as realisable property, even where a third party claims ownership, and that the judge's exercise of discretion in appointing the receiver was not erroneous given the need to preserve the property's value and the lack of timely action by the third party.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Management receiver appointment affirmed
  • Extension of time for respondent's notice granted (if required)