In re Andrews: CA 25 Feb 1999

Interesting and difficult question in an arcane field at the intersection of the old equitable remedy of receivership and the modern procedures of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 designed to combat serious crime. The problem in a nutshell is this: if a receiver is appointed under that Act to receive and manage a defendant’s property and incurs costs and expenses in so doing, who bears that cost and expense if the defendant is subsequently acquitted by the Crown Court and awarded his costs of defence out of public funds?
[1999] EWCA Civ 864, [2000] CP Rep 30
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988
England and Wales

Updated: 19 May 2021; Ref: scu.145779