References: [1791] EngR 1492, (1791) 4 TR 485, (1791) 100 ER 1132
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Lord Kenyon CJ, Ashurst J
If a Reveriue officer seize goods as forfeited, which are not liable to seizure, and take money of the owner to release them, the latter may recover back the money in action for money had and received. In such an action a month’s notice need not be given under the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30.
The action was brought for the recovery of money had and received by customs officers. The officers had stopped a cart containing goods which required a permit, without which they were liable to forfeiture. The carrier did not have a permit, but told the officers that the goods formed part of a larger consignment, and that a permit for the entire consignment was with the remainder of the consignment, some miles behind. The officers waited some time, but the remainder of the consignment did not appear. The officers then seized the goods. When the remainder of the consignment eventually arrived, and the permit was produced, those goods also were seized. The officers then refused to restore the goods until a payment had been made by the owner.
Held: The action succeeded.
Ashurst J noted that ‘the goods were not liable to seizure’, but also stated that ‘the defendants acted right in stopping the goods at first; but when the permit came up, there was no pretence to detain them’.
Lord Kenyon CJ distinguished between the initial detention and the subsequent seizure, stating that ‘whatever ground of probability there was for stopping the first cart, yet after the matter was cleared up, there was no pretence for making a seizure’.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others, Regina (on The Application of) -v- Revenue and Customs SC ([2014] 4 All ER 1, [2014] WLR(D) 262, Bailii, [2014] UKSC 34, Bailii Summary, WLRD, [2015] 1 AC 1101, (2014) 178 JP 314, [2014] 2 Cr App R 26, [2014] STC 1741, [2014] 2 WLR 1580, [2014] BVC 30, UKSC 2012/0163, SC, SC Summary)
Alcoholic drinks had been seized by the respondents pending further enquiries with a view to a possible forfeiture, then held and returned but only under court order. The company had complained that the detention of the goods was unlawful. The . .
