header-logo header-logo

14 August 2008
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Tax , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Legal profession

Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Allad [2008] EWCA Crim 1741, [2008] All ER (D) 407 (Jul)

The solicitors’ client was suspected of VAT evasion. The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office (RCPO) obtained a restraint order (under s 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) restraining him from disposing of his assets.

He had paid £5,000 to the solicitors on account of their fees. The solicitors, who had done work worth in excess of the £5,000, wanted to transfer the money out of the client account.

HELD The purpose of a criminal restraint order, as with a civil freezing order, is not to prevent third parties from enforcing civil rights against a defendant if those rights would be unaffected by any order which may be made against the defendant at the end of the proceedings.

The solicitors were entitled to take the course proposed without committing any contempt of court. They should notify RCPO in advance, in case there was any challenge to the size or propriety of their bill, but no variation to the restraint order was required in order to enable them to utilise the money in payment of their fees.

Issue: 7334 / Categories: Case law , Tax , Law digest
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll