Capewell v Customs and Excise and Another (No 2): CA 29 Jul 2005

The Commissioners had been appointed as receiver of the claimant’s assets. The receivership was later discharged, but should have been discharged earlier, the court had the power not only to calculate the level of remuneration but also who should be responsible for making payment. In this case the commissioner should bear some of the cost. The expenses of the receiver should however be recovered from the assets.


Laws, Longmore, Carnwath LJJ


[2005] EWCA Civ 964, Times 20-Sep-2005




Criminal Justice Act 1988 77(8)


England and Wales


See AlsoCapewell v Commissioners for HM Customs and Excise and Sinclair CA 2-Dec-2004
The court approved guidelines for the appointment and remuneration of a receiver appointed under the 1988 Act. . .
CitedHughes and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise etc CA 20-May-2002
N was charged with VAT fraud. He was the joint owner of a company with his brother T each holding 50% of the shares. T was never charged. A restraint and receivership order was made against N, preventing the company from dealing in any way with its . .
CitedIn Re Andrews CA 25-Feb-1999
The defendant and his son had been charged with offences relating to their joint business, and restraint orders were made. The son was convicted, but the defendant was acquitted and awarded his costs out of central funds. The taxing officer held . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCapewell v Revenue and Customs and Another HL 31-Jan-2007
The defendant appealed against an order regarding the remuneration of a receiver appointed to administer a restraint order placed on the assets of the defendant under the 1988 Act on the basis of an allegation that the defendant had been involved in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Costs

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229087