Senel Ahmet v David Paul Tatum

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's challenge to a High Court strike-out which had dismissed a civil claim as an abuse of process. The central legal question was whether Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) provides an exclusive statutory code for resolving disputes about property interests that arise in the context of restraint and confiscation proceedings. The Court held that POCA does not, as a matter of statutory construction, oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine property rights and that civil proceedings of this kind are not generally abusive.

The court rejected the Judge's conclusion that Parliament intended an exhaustive scheme requiring such disputes to be litigated only in the Crown Court under section 10A and related provisions. The Court emphasised that POCA contains provisions (notably sections 58(5) and 59(5)) authorising civil courts to stay or proceed on terms and that, where appropriate, a stay under those provisions is generally the preferable case management response rather than striking out as an abuse. The decision distinguished Capper v Chaney and other authorities relied on below, while recognising that in particular circumstances a civil claim might nonetheless amount to an abuse of process.

Background and parties:

• The dispute concerned beneficial ownership of Brindles Farmhouse. The appellant, Ms Senel Ahmet, alleged a beneficial interest in property registered in the name of Mr David Tatum, the first respondent.
• Following Mr Tatum's arrest and later conviction for offences relating to class A drugs and money laundering, the Crown Prosecution Service (the second respondent) obtained a restraint order under POCA which affected Brindles Farmhouse and joint bank funds.

Nature of the claim and procedural history:

• On 9 November 2022 Ms Ahmet issued civil proceedings seeking an inquiry and declaration as to the parties' beneficial interests in Brindles Farmhouse. The CPS applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process and on the basis that POCA provides the exclusive mechanism for resolving such disputes; the High Court (Michael Green J) struck out the claim on 23 May 2023. Ms Ahmet appealed to the Court of Appeal.
• The Crown Court had earlier made a restraint order (April 2021) and Mr Tatum later pleaded guilty and was sentenced; confiscation proceedings were in prospect.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether Part 2 of POCA constitutes an exclusive statutory code preventing civil courts from determining property rights that are relevant to restraint/confiscation proceedings.
• Whether the appellant's civil proceedings were an abuse of process because they sought effectively to pre-empt or circumvent determinations properly made under POCA in the Crown Court.

Court’s reasoning and findings:

• The Court reviewed the statutory framework of POCA (including sections 6, 7, 9, 10A, 31, 50, 51, 58(5), 59(5), 69 and 83) and the Serious Crime Act 2015 which inserted section 10A. It considered relevant authorities on statutory exclusivity and abuse of process (including Autologic, British Telecommunications (No 2), Capper v Chaney, Re Stanford and others).
• The Court concluded that, as a matter of statutory construction, POCA does not demonstrate a Parliamentary intention to oust civil jurisdiction entirely. Sections 58(5) and 59(5) expressly empower civil courts to stay or permit proceedings on terms, so the statute contemplates the coexistence of civil and Crown Court processes.
• The Court accepted that Crown Court determination under section 10A will often be convenient and appropriate and that third parties are afforded procedural protections under POCA, but held that this does not amount to exclusivity. Where a civil court considers it inappropriate for itself to decide the issue it should normally stay proceedings under sections 58(5)/59(5) rather than strike out as an abuse.
• The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the strike-out and dismissed the application to strike out the claim, while acknowledging that a stay in the High Court may be appropriate on the facts.

Subsidiary points: The Court distinguished Capper v Chaney (Part 5 context) and observed that particular features of other statutory regimes may produce exclusivity in different contexts; it reaffirmed general abuse of process principles but emphasised fact-sensitive case management.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s order striking out the appellant’s civil claim as an abuse of process, holding that Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 does not constitute an exclusive statutory code ousting civil court jurisdiction. The court explained that civil proceedings are not generally abusive in this context and that, where appropriate, a civil court should stay proceedings under sections 58(5) or 59(5) rather than strike them out.

Appeal from the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Chancery Division) (Michael Green J) [2023] EWHC 1492 (Ch) to the Court of Appeal ([2024] EWCA Civ 255).