AB and Ors v CD and Ors
[2023] EWHC 2419 (Ch)
The Director of Public Prosecutions v The Estate of Mildred Edwards (Deceased) & Anor
7 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1388 (Admin)
High Court
A man tried to get money from frozen assets to pay his lawyer. The judge said no because the man had other hidden money he didn't tell the court about. The judge found that letting him use the frozen money would be unfair.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Christopher Edwards applied to vary a property freezing order (PFO) to allow for the release of £28,555.50 for legal costs to challenge the PFO and a subsequent civil recovery order.
- •The DPP opposed the application, alleging incomplete and misleading information from Mr. Edwards regarding his assets.
- •Mr. Edwards had previously pleaded guilty to fraudulent evasion of duty and had transferred significant sums of money to Thailand.
- •The PFO covered proceeds from the sale of three properties, and Mr. Edwards had attempted to transfer funds from his Halifax account after being served with the PFO.
- •The court examined transactions involving Mr. Edwards' Halifax and Wise accounts, revealing potential breaches of the PFO.
- •Significant sums of money were transferred to accounts belonging to Mr. Edwards, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend's daughter both before and after the PFO was served.
Legal Principles
Three-stage test for exclusions to freezing orders in civil recovery proceedings (derived from Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd and other cases): (1) Defendant must show an arguable case for denying claimant's proprietary claim; (2) Defendant must show no other assets available; (3) Court weighs balance of justice.
Marino v FM Capital Partners Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1301; Sundt Wrigley & Co. Ltd v Wrigley; Fitzgerald v Williams [1996] QB 657; Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd [2009] EWHC 161 (Ch); GFH Capital Limited v Haigh [2018] EWHC 1187; Sketteforvalningen v Edo Barac & Ors [2020] EWHC 377 (Comm)
Test for exceptions from PFOs in Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 cases (from Serious Organised Crime Agency v Amir Azam [2013] EWCA Civ 970): (i) Applicant must show it's just to use PFO funds for legal expenses; (ii) Other available assets prevent use of PFO funds; (iii) Court considers likelihood of other assets, resolving doubt against applicant if evidence suggests undisclosed assets.
The Serious Organised Crime Agency v Amir Azam [2013] EWCA Civ 970
Outcomes
The application to vary the PFO was refused.
Mr. Edwards failed to demonstrate the absence of other available funds to pay his legal expenses. The court found inconsistencies and unexplained transactions suggesting the presence of other assets, and that granting the application would work an injustice to the DPP.