‘In a claim for relief from forfeiture the High Court refused to order relief where there was no good reason for delay beyond 6 months from re-entry, whether this resulted in a windfall for the landlord was irrelevant to the question of promptness.’
Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In this case comment, Michael Cox of CMS comments on the judgment handed down in the matter of The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (Formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2019] UKSC 46. Michael is a senior associate in the Real Estate Dispute team at CMS. Michael advises on all aspects of property law, with a particular emphasis on development advice and dispute resolution.’
UKSC Blog, 21st February 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The Crown Court dismissed Vlad Luca Filat’s appeal against the decision to forfeit £500,000 held in three bank accounts in his name. The court held that the money derived from bribery and corruption offences committed by the appellant’s father, the former prime minister of Moldova, and was obtained by money laundering. The case was the National Crime Agency’s first contested account forfeiture application. James Fletcher, barrister at 5SAH Chambers, who appeared for the National Crime Agency, suggests that these types of applications are likely to be deployed more and more often.’
5 SAH, 14th January 2020
Source: www.5sah.co.uk
‘Last week, the National Crime Agency deployed account freezing orders to secure £190 million held in the UK. Malik Riaz, a property developer and one of the biggest employers in Pakistan, reportedly agreed to pay £190 million in order to conclude an investigation into the funds[1]. The agreement followed the obtaining, in August 2019, of eight account freezing orders at Westminster City Magistrates’ Court in connection with funds held in the UK totalling around £120 million (the final settlement includes a UK property valued at £50 million). The assets are to be returned to the State of Pakistan.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 10th December 2019
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Traditionally it has been supposed that only tenants of leases could obtain relief from forfeiture; Grays’
Elements of Land Law 5th Ed. §4.1.69:
Only a tenant – and not a licensee – may ask for relief against forfeiture.
This has just been reversed by the Supreme Court (23rd October 2019).’
Guildhall Chambers, 7th November 2019
Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk
‘The idea behind Account Forfeiture Order Notices is that it makes it easier for law enforcement to forfeit recoverable property, or property that is to be used in unlawful conduct, without going to court. The powers should only be used where there is no likelihood that the forfeiture will be objected to. Although these seem simple provisions there are a lot of possible issues, such as the length of notice, who and how it is served, if it is reasonable to serve one in the first place, and if forfeiture occurs, if it can be set aside by an aggrieved party at a later date.’
Drystone Chambers, October 2019
Source: drystone.com
‘The Court of Appeal determined whether the existence of the right to relief from forfeiture amounts to a prospect of “success” at trial when considering an application under CPR r.39.3 to set aside a possession Order.’
Tanfield Chambers, 29th October 2019
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘Just a quick note to record that the Supreme Court has held that the equitable remedy of relief from forfeiture is not restricted to those with a proprietary interest (lease/tenancy, mortgage etc) but can also extend to licensees with possessory rights (ie a right to occupy or use the land). The whole thing is fascinating, but this is not the place to get into the details of the history of equitable relief.’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2019
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘As part of my series on AFO’s I am going to discuss what accounts can be frozen by Account Freezing Orders (‘AFO’s). Although the requirements under section 303Z5 setting out what a bank is seem straightforward, it can be hard in practice to determine when a bank account is not a bank account. It has, in my experience, caused a number of AFO’s to be discharged; this is where orders have frozen Forex trading accounts, ISA fund accounts, or other accounts which contain money but do not.’
Drystone Chambers, October 2019
Source: drystone.com
‘A woman who accompanied her husband to Dignitas can claim his £1.8 million estate, a High Court judge has ruled in a test case.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st February 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In Bennett v Chief Constable of Merseyside [2018] EWHC 3591 (Admin), the High Court confirmed that a district judge was correct to make no order for costs against the police after it withdrew its Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA’) s.298 application for cash forfeiture. In considering the decision of the district judge, the High Court reaffirmed three points: the starting point is that no order for costs should be made provided that the public authority has acted reasonably and properly; in determining whether the police acted reasonably and properly, the court should scrutinise the behaviour of the police with care; and it may be justifiable to award costs against the police, particularly where the successful private party would suffer substantial hardship if no order for costs were made in their favour.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th January 2019
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’
Supreme Court, 8th November 2018
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
‘The last tranche of the Criminal Finance Act 2017 (‘CFA’) was enacted on the 17th of April 2018, which put in place the laws in relation to the forfeiture of movable property. For the ease of purpose, I have called this asset seizure, to bring it into its rightful place along with account and cash seizures.’
Drystone Chambers, July 2018
Source: drystone.com
‘The High Court was entitled to use its discretion to grant Vauxhall Motors relief from forfeiture of its licence to discharge surface water into the Manchester Ship Canal, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 25th May 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In Campbell v Bromley Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWCA Civ 1161 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that that there are no “fruits of the forbidden tree” consequences when it comes to the forfeiture of cash seized in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”).’
UK Police Law Blog, 10th August 2017
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘On the 27th April 2017 the Criminal Finance Act (‘CFA 2017’) received Royal Assent. The Criminal Finance Act 2017 ushers in wide-ranging reforms to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA 2002’). This article is part of a series of short comment pieces highlighting some of the main changes the CFA 2017 makes. It also covers issues related to Barnaby’s previous piece which set out some of the changes the Criminal Finance Bill enacted.’
Drystone Chambers, 30th May 2017
Source: drystone.com
‘A couple of county court cases on Airbnb/short let use by leaseholders. One was reported in the newspapers, the other has not been reported anywhere before. Both show the potentially serious consequences of leaseholders letting out on short lets, where lease clauses arguably prevent it. We have seen the clause ‘use only as a private residence’ in the Upper Tribunal Nemcova, and subletting without consent, “otherwise than as a private residence for occupation by a single household” and carrying out a trade, business or profession from the Property in the FTT in LON/00AY/LBC/2015/0021. In both these cases, other lease clauses were involved, so there is an extension of the kind of clause catching Airbnb/short let use.’
Nearly Legal, 7th April 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Imagine receiving instructions from a client that his mother has died intestate but that a sibling had taken the property (the principal asset of the estate) and was not prepared to sell the property and share the proceeds of sale 50 / 50.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 17th February 2017
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Property analysis: Is relief from forfeiture only available to claimants with proprietary or possessory rights? Barrister Robert Bowker, of Tanfield Chambers, considers the recent High Court decision in General Motors UK v Manchester Ship Canal Company.’
Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024