header-logo header-logo

10 January 2019 / Jason Woodland
Issue: 7823 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Between a rock & a hard place?

nlj_7823_woodland

Jason Woodland on parallel criminal & civil proceedings

  • Two recent court decisions reaffirm that there must be a ‘real’, rather than merely ‘notional’, risk of injustice when applying to stay civil fraud claims because of a related criminal investigation.

Defendants to civil proceedings for fraud will often find themselves also subject to parallel criminal proceedings or investigations. This can leave the defendant in a difficult position: how to deal with the civil claim before knowing the extent of the criminal charges or the evidence relied on by the prosecution?

Uncompromising approach

In recent times, the civil courts have taken an uncompromising approach to defendants faced with this problem, and required them to deal with both sets of proceedings in parallel. A defendant faced with this situation is often perceived as trying to ‘play the system’ and avoid setting out their position. As the judge put it in Panton v Financial Institutions Services Limited [2003] UKPC 95, [2003] All ER (D) 294 (Dec) ‘a stay would not be granted

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll