Woman who accompanied her husband to Dignitas will inherit his £1.8 million estate, judge rules in test case – Daily Telegraph

Posted February 22nd, 2019 in assisted suicide, forfeiture, married persons, news, wills by tracey

‘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.’

Full Story

Daily Telegraph, 21st February 2019

Source: www.telegraph.co.uk

No order for costs following withdrawn forfeiture application – UK Police Law Blog

Posted January 28th, 2019 in appeals, costs, drug offences, forfeiture, news, police, proceeds of crime by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 27th January 2019

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn – Supreme Court

Posted November 16th, 2018 in equity, estoppel, fiduciary duty, forfeiture, lectures, rectification, solicitors by tracey

‘Lord Briggs at the Denning Society Annual Lecture, Lincoln’s Inn.’

Full speech

Supreme Court, 8th November 2018

Source: www.supremecourt.uk

Asset Seizures – An Overview of the New POCA Powers Brought in Under Criminal Finance Act 2017 – Drystone Chambers

Posted August 9th, 2018 in forfeiture, news, proceeds of crime by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Drystone Chambers, July 2018

Source: drystone.com

Court of Appeal clarifies right to relief from forfeiture – OUT-LAW.com

Posted May 29th, 2018 in canals, forfeiture, licensing, news, water by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

OUT-LAW.com, 25th May 2018

Source: www.out-law.com

Lawfulness of search warrant and detention irrelevant to forfeiture of cash – UK Police Law Blog

Posted August 11th, 2017 in forfeiture, money laundering, news, proceeds of crime, search & seizure, warrants by tracey

‘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”).’

Full Story

UK Police Law Blog, 10th August 2017

Source: ukpolicelawblog.com

Changes to the Seizure Provisions Under the Criminal Finance Act 2017 – Drystone Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Drystone Chambers, 30th May 2017

Source: drystone.com

Short term lets, long term consequences – Nearly Legal

Posted April 10th, 2017 in forfeiture, housing, injunctions, leases, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 7th April 2017

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Forfeiture Act 1982: Nothing to do with Section 146 or peaceable re-entry this time – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted February 22nd, 2017 in forfeiture, legislation, mental health, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th February 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

When is relief from forfeiture available? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted February 17th, 2017 in canals, estoppel, forfeiture, licensing, news, water by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th January 2017

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Practical advice on forfeiture – Hardwicke Chambers

‘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.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 19th April 2016

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Saving the bank’s security after it is too late… – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 26th, 2016 in banking, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news, setting aside by sally

‘It is a requirement of the court rules that when a landlord seeks to forfeit a residential lease by issuing a claim in court, that claim must be served on a mortgagee. The purpose of this provision is to make sure that the bank is able to apply for relief from forfeiture (and hence reinstate its security) before it is too late. But what happens if the bank is served with the claim, the tenant and the bank do not attend the hearing, the lease is forfeited and the possession order subsequently enforced with the result that title is closed and the bank loses its security?’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 21st April 2016

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

UBS AG v Revenue and Customs Comrs; DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs – WLR Daily

Posted March 15th, 2016 in appeals, banking, employment, forfeiture, income tax, law reports by sally

UBS AG v Revenue and Customs Comrs; DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2016] UKSC 13

‘In 2004 two banks entered into arrangements designed to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the lncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as substituted, which created a special regime for employment-related securities whereby “restricted securities” (including, by section 423(2), shares which were subject to a condition providing for their forfeiture in certain circumstances so as to render their market value less than it otherwise would be but for that condition) were, by section 425(2) and 429, exempt from income tax. Each bank invoked a scheme whereby (i) it set up a company merely for the purposes of the scheme, which undertook no activities beyond its participation in the scheme, was to be liquidated upon the termination of the scheme, and the memorandum and articles of which contained conditions designed to comply with Chapter 2, and (ii) the shares of the company were to be allocated to specified employees in lieu of a cash bonus. In the first case there was a condition for an immediate and automatic sale of the shares if, on any date during a specified three week period, the closing value of the FTSE 100 Index exceeded a defined “trigger level”, the probability of which was unlikely but in any event was hedged against so that in the event of a forced sale the employees would not be materially worse off. In the second case there was a provision which, in effect, provided that an employee would forfeit his shares if he voluntarily resigned or was dismissed for misconduct during the first eight weeks after the company was set up. In both cases, once the exemptions from income tax conferred by sections 425(2) and 429 had accrued, the shares were redeemable by the employees for cash. The revenue took the view that the banks were to be treated as having paid the relevant employees cash sums equal to their share allocation and issued PAYE determinations and NIC decisions against each bank, as the body liable to deduct such sums. Each bank appealed. The First-tier Tribunal, in separate decisions, held that Parliament could not have intended that the exemption should apply to arrangements contrived purely in order to obtain the exemption but having no other business or commercial purpose. On appeals heard together the Upper Tribunal held that the scheme in the first case met the requirements of the legislation and so allowed that bank’s appeal, but held that the scheme in the second case did not fully comply with the terms of Chapter 2 in that, on the facts, the company had been set up in a way which did not comply with section 429. On appeal by the revenue in the first case and by the bank in the second case, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the first case on like ground and, having reversed the factual finding in the second case, allowed that bank’s appeal on the ground that its scheme also met the requirements of Chapter 2.’

WLR Daily, 9th March 2016

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

A Hawarden Kite – Nearly Legal

Posted March 1st, 2016 in covenants, forfeiture, housing, leases, news, tribunals by sally

‘Forfeiture of (residential) long leases is a controversial subject: on the one hand, it’s clear that there has to be a practical and accessible route for landlords to enforce covenants, whether as to payment of monies or more general “management” covenants (e.g. stopping people just removing load bearing walls); but, on the other, the potential for an enormous (and almost always disproportionate) benefit to the landlord if the lease actually is forfeited is pretty hard to justify. Moreover, as a result of both the general drafting techniques in long leases and some [ahem] interesting Court of Appeal decisions, there is a pretty good case that a landlord can recover his legal and professional costs of pursuing forfeiture matters, even if the breach is trivial or if relief would be granted.’

Full story

Nearly Legal, 29th February 2016

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Amber Services Europe Ltd and others v Director of Border Revenue – WLR Daily

Posted January 14th, 2016 in appeals, customs and excise, forfeiture, law reports by sally

Amber Services Europe Ltd and others v Director of Border Revenue [2015] EWHC 3665 (Admin); [2015] WLR (D) 557

‘A conviction for an offence contrary to section 170B(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 was not required in order for goods to be liable to forfeiture under section 170B(2).”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Relief from forfeiture for deliberate breaches of covenant – the Court of Appeal gives guidance in Freifeld – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted October 7th, 2015 in covenants, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘Mixed residential and commercial developments frequently cause problems for the residential occupiers and work for lawyers, in particular when the commercial units are let to bars or restaurants which create noise and nuisance in the evenings and at weekends.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 16th September 2015

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Illegal migrants in UK face jail if caught driving – The Guardian

Posted September 18th, 2015 in bills, forfeiture, immigration, news, road traffic offences by tracey

‘People who drive a car while they are in Britain illegally face being jailed and having their vehicle seized under powers included in the government’s latest immigration bill. Most of the measures in the legislation, published on Thursday, are designed to create “a hostile environment” for migrants who are in Britain unlawfully and have already been strongly trailed by ministers since the general election. The Commons second reading of the bill is scheduled for 13 October, shortly after the Conservative party conference.’

Full story

The Guardian, 17th September 2015

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

After Freifeld, when might a tenant be refused relief from forfeiture? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted September 4th, 2015 in covenants, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘In Freifeld v West Kensington Court Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 806, long-lessees had deliberately granted a future sub-lease of a commercial unit to a Chinese restaurant in breach of their alienation covenant not to sublet without landlord’s consent. An initial application for relief from forfeiture failed, because the tenants had wilfully breached their alienation covenant, and because there was an extensive history of neglectful management by the tenants of their obligations under the headlease. The judge concluded that the relationship between the tenants and their landlord had become dysfunctional and that it should not be re-imposed on the landlord by the grant of relief to the tenants.’
Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 21st August 2015

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh – WLR Daily

Serious Fraud Office v Saleh [2015] EWHC 2119 (QB); [2015] WLR (D) 368

‘Where the court in another jurisdiction made an order for the restoration of shares to their owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings by the prosecuting authority in that jurisdiction, the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom was not prevented from initiating proceedings against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within the United Kingdom.’

WLR Daily, 21st July 2015

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

‘Wilful’ breach of lease not sufficient to allow landlord to terminate, court rules – OUT-LAW.com

Posted August 6th, 2015 in appeals, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘A tenant who “wilfully” breached the conditions of his lease by sub-letting to an obnoxious sub-tenant without the consent of the ultimate landlord should not be forced to forfeit the lease immediately, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 5th August 2015

Source: www.out-law.com