Senel Ahmet v David Tatum & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch)
Senel Ahmet v David Paul Tatum
15 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 255
Court of Appeal
A woman's claim to part of a house, which was frozen due to her partner's criminal case, was thrown out by a lower court. The higher court overturned the decision, saying the law doesn't automatically ban separate civil court cases in situations like this. It emphasized that while it's often best to settle such disputes within the criminal court, it's not always an abuse of process to use the civil courts. The higher court said the lower court should have paused the civil case instead of completely dismissing it.
Key Facts
- •Ms Senel Ahmet appeals the High Court's decision to strike out her claim for an inquiry into her beneficial interest in Brindles Farmhouse.
- •Brindles Farmhouse is subject to a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) due to Mr Tatum's drug and money laundering convictions.
- •Ms Ahmet claims a beneficial interest in the property, arguing the transfer to Mr Tatum's sole name was for loan facilitation.
- •The CPS argued that POCA provides an exclusive code for resolving property disputes arising from confiscation proceedings, requiring the matter to be determined in the Crown Court.
- •The High Court agreed with the CPS, striking out Ms Ahmet's claim as an abuse of process.
Legal Principles
Statutory construction determines whether a statutory remedy is exclusive or coexists with other remedies.
British Telecommunications plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners (No 2) [2023] EWCA Civ 1412
Using the court process to indirectly achieve a result that should be pursued through a designated statutory process is an abuse of process.
Autologic Holdings plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2005] UKHL 54
Abuse of process encompasses the inherent power of the court to prevent misuse of procedure that is manifestly unfair or brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
POCA allows the Crown Court to determine property interests relevant to confiscation orders, but does not necessarily preclude civil court involvement.
POCA sections 10A, 58(5), 59(5)
Civil proceedings may be an abuse of process if they aim to circumvent the POCA process, particularly when the central dispute is with the prosecutor.
Capper v Chaney [2010] EWHC 1704 (Ch)
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's decision to strike out the claim.
The High Court erred in finding that POCA provided a complete and exhaustive code for resolving all property disputes related to confiscation proceedings. POCA allows for concurrent civil and criminal proceedings, and striking out the claim was not appropriate.