Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

CRIMINAL LAW: Gibson v Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office [2008] EWCA Civ 645

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : gibson-v-revenue-and-customs-prosecution-office-2008-ewca-civ-645
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 17, 2008, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 86707

(Court of Appeal; May, Arden and Wall LJJ; 12 June 2008)

The husband was convicted of drug trafficking. A confiscation order made against him attributed the entire equity in the jointly owned matrimonial home to the husband. In the enforcement proceedings the wife contested this, arguing that she had a 50% claim to the equity and to endowment policies and bank accounts also held in joint names. The judge held that the wife's acquisition of an interest in the assets had not been by way of gift, because she had provided consideration by bringing up the children and looking after the home. However, the judge decided that the wife's beneficial interest in all the jointly held assets was only 12.5%, on the basis that she had known that money used to pay the mortgage was not legitimately earned, and that this guilty knowledge should be taken into account. The judge relied on two Family Division cases concerning matrimonial assets tainted by guilty knowledge, Customs v Excise Commissioners v Ai [2002] EWCA Civ 1039 and CPS v Richards [2006] EWCA Civ 849 [2006] 2 FLR 122.

The property in question had been joint names and there was nothing to displace the presumption of equal beneficial ownership; the wife had not had to rely on any illegality to establish her beneficial interest. The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 applied to gifts, but not to any interest for which consideration had been given. The Family Division cases relied on had concerned wives who were seeking to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to transfer assets that were the subject of confiscation proceedings to them, whereas this wife was not seeking any transfer in her favour, but to retain assets that she already held. The prosecution had failed to establish any public policy jurisdiction entitling the court to confiscate the wife's assets when she had not been convicted of any offence and there had been no confiscation order made against her.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from