Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Woodstock [2006] EWCA Civ 741 (18 May 2006)

Director of the Assets Recovery Agency v Woodstock [2006] EWCA Civ 741 (18 May 2006)

There was a triable issue as to the source of the funds used to purchase the property, as the respondent provided a plausible account supported by witness statements and documentary evidence. The Director's case relied on suspicion and adverse inferences rather than direct evidence. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 741
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Director of the Assets Recovery Agency; Defendant/respondent: Robert Lloyd Woodstock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court (administrative Court, Queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Recovery Order, Burden of Proof, Unlawful Conduct, Evidence Assessment
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Property Law Summary Judgment Recovery Order Burden of Proof Unlawful Conduct Evidence Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Director of the Assets Recovery Agency

Claimant/appellant

Robert Lloyd Woodstock

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court (administrative Court, Queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment is appropriate in recovery order proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
  2. 2 Whether there was a triable issue as to the source of funds used to purchase property

Ratio Decidendi

There was a triable issue as to the source of the funds used to purchase the property, as the respondent provided a plausible account supported by witness statements and documentary evidence. The Director's case relied on suspicion and adverse inferences rather than direct evidence. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Permission to rely on further evidence, no order