Doherty v Westminster Magistrates' Court & Ors

Where proceedings concerning detained cash include both a forfeiture application and applications by persons claiming the cash, each application constitutes separate proceedings under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under rule 11(2) of the Magistrates' Court (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002, each applicant is deemed to be a complainant and the relevant respondents are deemed to be defendants. A magistrates' court therefore has jurisdiction under section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to order costs directly in favour of persons who made applications for release of the detained cash.

Cash seized by the Serious Organised Crime Agency was the subject of forfeiture proceedings under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Finance companies applied under section 301 asserting ownership and seeking release of the cash. The District Judge found the cash to be recoverable property and ordered its release to the finance companies. He later ordered the claimant to pay 75 per cent of the costs sought by those companies.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permitted costs orders only in favour of a complainant and that the finance companies did not have that status. Permission had been granted on that limited issue.

1. Application dismissed. The District Judge had jurisdiction to order the claimant to pay costs directly to the finance companies.
2. Section 64 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 permits a magistrates' court, on hearing a complaint, to order costs payable by the defendant to the complainant.
3. There were two categories of application before the District Judge. SOCA was the applicant, and therefore the complainant, in the forfeiture proceedings under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Each finance company was an applicant, and therefore a complainant, in its own section 301 application for release of the detained cash.
4. Rule 11(2) of the Magistrates' Court (Detention and Forfeiture of Cash) Rules 2002 provides that proceedings on an application under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Act are regulated in the same manner as proceedings on a complaint. For that purpose, the application is deemed to be a complaint, the applicant a complainant, and the respondents defendants.
5. The finance companies consequently fell within the statutory description of complainants. The District Judge plainly had power to make the costs order in their favour. The court noted that, had the relevant provisions been drawn to the attention of the court when permission was sought, permission would not have been granted.
6. The court also stated that there is no appeal from a decision refusing an adjournment. The application was hopeless, particularly given the length of the proceedings and the limited material supporting the adjournment request.
7. Costs were summarily assessed at £13,500.

Permission to apply for judicial review had previously been refused on the papers by Mitting J. A Divisional Court comprising Hooper LJ and Singh J granted limited permission on 9 December 2011 in [2011] EWHC 3811 (Admin). The present Divisional Court dismissed the claim.