Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Lamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a management receiver over the property as it had been adjudicated to be realisable property in confiscation proceedings, and the existence of an unresolved third party claim did not preclude such appointment. The judge did not err in exercising discretion to appoint a receiver to preserve the property pending resolution of ownership, especially given the risk to the property's value and the lack of adequate management by the appellant.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Appointment of Management Receiver
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Management Receivership, Realisable Property, Third Party Interests, Confiscation Orders, Jurisdiction, Discretion in Appointment of Receivers
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Forfeiture Management Receivership Realisable Property Third Party Interests Confiscation Orders Jurisdiction +1 more

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 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Lamb

Appellant / Interested Party

The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office

Respondent / Applicant

Stephen Michael Pigott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Appointment of Management Receiver

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High 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 resolution of third party interests

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a management receiver over the property as it had been adjudicated to be realisable property in confiscation proceedings, and the existence of an unresolved third party claim did not preclude such appointment. The judge did not err in exercising discretion to appoint a receiver to preserve the property pending resolution of ownership, especially given the risk to the property's value and the lack of adequate management by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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