The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) v Jarvis & Anor

Ownership of foreign immovable property is generally governed by the law of the country where the property is situated, particularly where the purchase, mortgage, documentation and parties’ arrangements are closely connected with that country. An English trust will not be imposed merely because one party asserts a beneficial interest. The court must identify the law with the closest connection to the property arrangements. Applying Spanish law, a notarised conveyance and registration supported the conclusion that the registered purchaser was the legal and beneficial owner. Unchallenged witness statements may carry little weight where their makers do not attend for cross-examination.

The Crown Prosecution Service sought to realise assets subject to confiscation orders against Edward Robert Jarvis. The proceedings concerned a property in Estepona, Spain, which had been purchased and registered in Mr Jarvis’s name. Zulfu Vatandas claimed beneficial ownership, asserting that he had funded the purchase and that registration in Mr Jarvis’s name had been adopted for convenience.

Following an order by Soole J appointing a receiver and directing a trial of Mr Vatandas’s claim, the issue was whether Mr Vatandas had any legal or beneficial interest in the property under Spanish or English law, and whether the property and its sale proceeds fell within the receivership assets.

1. Disposition. The court found that Mr Jarvis was the legal and beneficial owner of the Estepona property. The property and its proceeds therefore fell within the assets subject to the Receivership Order and could be realised towards satisfaction of the confiscation order.
2. Applicable law. The property was situated in Spain. The purchase arrangements were made there, the parties appeared before a Spanish notary, the mortgage was provided by a Spanish bank, and the documentation was in Spanish. Those factors made Spanish law the law governing the alleged beneficial interest. The reasoning in Martin v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] EWCA Civ.1289 supported applying the law of the country with which the arrangements had their closest connection.
3. Spanish law. The expert evidence, based on the Spanish Civil Code, indicated that ownership was transferred by title and delivery. A notarised deed could constitute delivery, and the deed identified Mr Jarvis as purchaser. Together with registration in his name, that evidence supported the conclusion that he was the owner under Spanish law.
4. English trust claim. Any claim under the English law of trusts failed because English law did not govern the property arrangements. The court also stated that, even if the merits had required determination, Mr Vatandas’s claim had no merit for the reasons advanced by the CPS.
5. Evidence. The court attached little weight to witness statements from witnesses who did not attend for cross-examination. The order sought by the CPS was made, subject to recitals reflecting the judgment.