H M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another; A v A; Re MCA: CA 22 Jul 2002

The husband and wife divorced and a property adjustment order applied for. The husband had been convicted and a drugs proceeds order made under the 1994 Act. The order had not been satisfied, and the receiver applied for money from the matrimonial property.
Held: The two Acts gave no indication that either was to take priority over the other. There was no rule of principle that either claim should take priority, and each case fell to be considered on its facts. In this case the wife had had no knowledge of her husband’s activities, and the order transferring the home and insurance policies to her free of the confiscation order should stand.

Lord Justice Schiemann
Gazette 26-Sep-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1039, [2003] 2 WLR 210, [2003] Fam 55
Drug Trafficking Act 1994, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 24
England and Wales
Appeal fromH M Customs and Excise and Another v MCA and Another 18-Apr-2002
The court held that they were not precluded by an application made under the 1994 Act against assets of the husband from making an order in favour of the wife under the 1973 Act. The court discharged the Receiver appointed under section 29(2) DTA . .
CitedHarris v Goddard CA 1983
In a divorce petition, the petitioner sought, under section 24 of the 1973 Act, to sever the joint tenancy in the family home. The respondent died in a car crash before the hearing.
Held: The mere inclusion of such a prayer did not itself . .

Cited by:
CitedGita Ram v Baskinder Ram,Solinder Ram, Monder Ram and Maurice William Russell CA 5-Nov-2004
A bankrupt had, before his bankruptcy disposed of his share in a house at an undervalue. His wife appealed an order that the share disposed of should vest entirely in the trustee in bankruptcy. Matrimonial proceedings had also been commenced.
CitedRegina v Stannard CACD 1-Nov-2005
The defendant had been convicted of offences in which he had operated to purchase companies and use false debentures to evade corporation tax. Compensation had been sought under the 1988 Act. It was argued that the confiscation order should be . .
CitedCrown Prosecution Service v Richards and Richards CA 27-Jun-2006
The court was asked how to resolve the conflict between a public policy imperative to deprive offenders of the fruits of their crime and the requirement that dependants are provided for after divorce when the only funds available for both are the . .
CitedStodgell v Stodgell FD FD 18-Jul-2008
The parties were involved in ancillary relief proceedings. At the same time the husband was in prison after having hidden earnings from his business, and was subject to an unsatisfied confiscation order. The guardian had had doubts about the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Family, Criminal Sentencing

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.174344