R v Jonathan Porter & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1485
Ivan Norman v N & CJ Horton Property (a firm)
29 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch)
High Court
Three companies sued each other over unpaid loans. One company claimed the loans were part of a money-laundering scheme. The judge disagreed, saying there wasn't enough evidence to prove this, and ruled in favor of the companies who claimed they were owed money.
Key Facts
- •Three related claims with common parties: Ivan Norman's claim for loan repayment (£500,000), Select Lifestyles Ltd et al.'s claim against Dean Norman for breach of director's duties, and Steven Crump et al.'s claim for loan repayment (£1.4 million).
- •Horton parties (Select, N&C Horton, Horton Motorcycles) alleged money laundering against Dean, Ivan, and Crump parties.
- •Amendments introduced allegations of money laundering against Dean, Ivan, and Crump, based on allegedly suspicious financial transactions.
- •Applications to amend pleadings, strike out, and summary judgment were made.
Legal Principles
Test for establishing money laundering in civil cases when a predicate offense cannot be directly established (R v Anwoir).
R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354
Principles governing amendment applications (real prospect of success, coherence, particularization, evidentiary basis).
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33
Power to strike out a statement of case (CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c)).
CPR 3.4(2)
Summary judgment principles (CPR 24.2) (no real prospect of success, compelling reason for trial).
CPR 24.2
Particularization requirements for allegations of knowledge, fraud, and dishonesty (CPR PD 16, Three Rivers).
CPR PD 16, Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16
Summary judgment and strike-out applications where fraud/dishonesty are alleged (Portland Stone, King v Stiefel, Jafari-Fini).
Portland Stone Firms Ltd v Barclays Bank plc [2018] EWHC 2341 (QB), King v Stiefel, Jafari-Fini v Skillglass Ltd.
Money laundering offences under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) (ss. 327-329).
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Admissibility of expert evidence (Civil Evidence Act 1972, CPR 35.1, Barings, Robb).
Civil Evidence Act 1972, CPR 35.1, Barings Plc v Coopers & Lybrand, R v Robb
Outcomes
Horton parties' applications to amend pleadings were dismissed.
Horton parties had no real prospect of establishing money laundering defence; their case lacked sufficient particularization and evidentiary support.
Crump parties' application to strike out paragraphs relating to money laundering was granted.
Horton parties lacked a real prospect of success on their money laundering defence.
Summary judgment granted to Dean Norman on his counterclaim for loan repayment (£75,000).
Sufficient evidence supported Dean's claim; Horton parties had no real prospect of success in opposing it.
Horton parties' application for expert evidence was refused.
Expert evidence was neither necessary nor helpful to resolve the proceedings; the expert lacked the necessary expertise to opine on the legal issue of money laundering.