Senel Ahmet v David Paul Tatum
[2024] EWCA Civ 255
Senel Ahmet v David Tatum & Anor
23 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch)
High Court
A woman tried to get a share of her boyfriend's house in a separate court case, while he was in court facing drug charges and his assets were frozen. The judge said that wasn't allowed; the rules said she had to claim her share in the same court dealing with his drug case, so he threw her case out.
Key Facts
- •Senel Ahmet (Claimant) claims a beneficial interest in a property owned solely by her partner, David Tatum (First Defendant), who was recently imprisoned for 15 years on drug and conspiracy charges.
- •The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) (Second Defendant) applied to strike out the claim, arguing it's an abuse of process.
- •The property was initially jointly owned, then transferred to Tatum's sole name for a mortgage.
- •A restraint order was imposed on the property and a joint account.
- •Ahmet previously applied to vary the restraint order in the Crown Court but did not fully pursue her claim to beneficial ownership.
- •Ahmet then issued a Part 8 claim in the Chancery Division to determine her beneficial interest.
- •Confiscation proceedings are underway in the Crown Court against Tatum under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).
Legal Principles
Abuse of Process
Capper v Chaney & Anor [2010] EWHC 1704; Autologic Holdings Plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2006] 1 AC 118
POCA provides a comprehensive scheme for resolving property disputes in confiscation proceedings.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Crown Court has jurisdiction to determine the extent of a defendant's interest in property under POCA.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, section 10A
Third parties have the right to intervene in confiscation proceedings to protect their interests.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, sections 10A, 42, 51(8), 58
It is an abuse of process to circumvent a statutory scheme by bringing parallel proceedings in a different court.
Capper v Chaney & Anor [2010] EWHC 1704; Chellapermal v the Financial Conduct Authority [2019] EWHC 2260 (Ch)
Outcomes
The claim was struck out.
The proceedings constituted an abuse of process as they sought to circumvent the comprehensive scheme laid down by Parliament in POCA for resolving disputed property interests in confiscation proceedings. The claimant had opportunities to raise her claim within the Crown Court proceedings and bringing parallel proceedings in the Chancery Division was deemed inappropriate.
Similar Cases
R v Rebecca Thompson
[2023] EWCA Crim 1244
Arvindar Singh (as trustee in bankruptcy of Mrs Angela Garcha) v Angela Garcha & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1844 (Ch)
Director of Public Prosecutions v Patrick Bijou
[2024] EWHC 2997 (Admin)
Ministry Of Justice Of The Kingdom Of The Netherlands v Huseyin Baybasin & Or
[2024] EWHC 2343 (KB)