Crown Prosecution Service v Compton, Comptons of Brighton Limited, Coyne, Compton: CA 27 Nov 2002

Appeal against refusal of restraint order.
Held: It is enough that on the documents a good arguable case arises for treating the relevant assets as the realisable property of the defendant.
Lord Justice Simon Brown said: ‘All that I think it appropriate on this appeal to add by way of comment on the approach to adopt to the exercise of section 26 powers is that if, on the documents, a good arguable case arises for the treating of particular assets as the realisable property of the defendant – here on the basis that the company’s corporate veil should properly be pierced – then the relevant restraint (and possibly receivership) order(s) should ordinarily be made. That essentially is the test for the grant of Mareva relief. So too should it be the test for the exercise of the section 26 powers. It is, of course, open to third parties (or the defendant himself where the order is made without notice) to apply to set it aside.’
Lord Justice Clarke, Lord Justice May, Lord Justice Simon Brown VP
[2002] EWCA Civ 1720
Bailii
Drug Trafficking Act 1994
England and Wales
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.178473