Capewell 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 a carousel fraud. The defendant had complained of the huge bills from the receiver.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The receiver’s remuneration had not yet been approved by the court, and the House could not comment on it. The case of Hughes states clearly and correctly the somewhat opaque relationship between the general law of receivership and the detailed provisions of CJA 1988. CPR 69.7 has not overruled Hughes.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance
Times 01-Feb-2007, [2007] UKHL 2, [2007] 1 WLR 386, [2007] 2 All ER 370
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Criminal Justice Act 1988, Civil Procedure Rules 69.7
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Rezvi HL 24-Jan-2002
Having been convicted of theft, a confiscation order had been made against which the appellant appealed. The Court of Appeal certified a question of whether confiscation provisions under the 1988 Act were in breach of the defendant’s human rights. . .
Appeal fromCapewell 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. . .
See AlsoCapewell 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 . .
CitedHopkins v Worcester and Birmingham Canal Proprietors 1868
The power to appoint a receiver is part of the court’s auxiliary equitable jurisdiction and is one of the oldest remedies in the Court of Chancery. It is used in situations requiring interim protection of property (and the income of property), . .
CitedBoehm v Goodall ChD 24-Nov-1910
Receiver – Partnership Action – Consent Order appointing Receiver and Manager
– Payments by Receiver – Insufficiency of Assets – Indemnity – Claim
against Partners personally.
In an action for dissolution of partnership a receiver . .
CitedEvans v Clayhope Properties Ltd ChD 1987
Vinelott J doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs . .
CitedEvans v Clayhope Properties Ltd CA 1988
Nourse LJ doubted whether a receiver’s remuneration could be recovered as litigation costs. . .
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 . .
CitedAiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk Ltd (The ‘Vimeira’) HL 1986
Wide Application of Costs Against Third Party
A claim had been made against charterers by the ship owners, and in turn by the charterers against their sub-charterers. Notice of motion were issued after arbitration awards were not accepted. When heard, costs awards were made, which were now . .

Cited by:
CitedLamb v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office CA 18-Mar-2010
The appellant challenged the appointment of a receiver in respect of property registered in his name, but said to be the realisable property of a man convicted of cheating the revenue. He said that he had funded the property, and that he had not . .
CitedBarnes (As Former Court Appointed Receiver) v The Eastenders Group and Another SC 8-May-2014
Costs of Wrongly Appointed Receiver
‘The contest in this case is about who should bear the costs and expenses of a receiver appointed under an order which ought not to have been made. The appellant, who is a former partner in a well known firm of accountants, was appointed to act as . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.248329