The Customs appealed an order allowing a judge in divorce ancillary relief proceedings to make an order transferring the matrimonial home and two life policies in such a way as would defeat their attempt to enforce recovery under the 1994 Act.
Held: The customs had not established that the 1994 had any statutory priority. Both Acts gave discretion to the judge, and the decisions will vary from situation to situation, and it was not axiomatic that one Act took precedence over the other. In appropriate cases, collusion between spouses could be dealt with after the event by the Customs establishing absence of full disclosure to the court making the order. The primary task of a court is to find facts and identify the crucial legal points and to advance reasons for deciding them in a particular way, rather than to engage in academic discussion.
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Judge and Mr Justice Wall
Times 25-Jul-2002,  2 All ER 736,  Fam 55
England and Wales
Affirmed – Ahmad v Ahmad CA 21-Jul-1998
Cited – Parker v Parker ChD 24-Jul-2003
Lord Macclesfield claimed a right to occupy a castle. The owners claimed that he had only a mere tenancy at will. The exact rooms in the castle which had been occupied had varied over time.
Held: The applicant was entitled to reasonable . .
Cited – Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office CA 12-Jun-2008
The claimant’s husband had been made subject to a criminal confiscation order in the sum of pounds 5.5 million. She now sought to appeal an action against life policies in which she claimed a 50% interest.
Held: Despite the finding that she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Customs and Excise
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.174392