National Crime Agency v Chameleon Capital Holdings Ltd & Ors

Under CPR 19.2(2), a person affected by an order may be added as a party only where doing so has issue-resolution utility: the court must be able to resolve a matter already in dispute, or a connected issue which it is desirable to bring within the proceedings. The statutory and procedural protections available to a non-party person affected may be sufficient, including rights to seek variation or discharge, an opportunity to be heard, and a statutory claim for a declaration. A prospective entitlement to notice of all future applications is inappropriate where it could impede urgent or without-notice applications. Access to court documents will not ordinarily be ordered merely to enable a non-party to protect its interests or assist an investigating authority, absent a proper open-justice or issue-resolution basis.

The National Crime Agency obtained, without notice, an unexplained wealth order and an interim freezing order under Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 against Chameleon Capital Holdings Ltd, Club 365 Ltd, Paul John Barclay and David John Ubsdell. A property freezing order was later made under Part 5. Enspire Investments LLC, which had transferred €45 million into the transactional chain and claimed to have been affected by fraud, applied to be joined as a party.

Alternatively, Enspire sought 14 days’ notice of future applications and access to applications and evidence under CPR 5.4C. The central issues were whether Enspire had issue-resolution utility as a proposed party, whether prospective notice was justified, and whether fairness, open justice or the procedural rules required disclosure of the court documents.

1. Application dismissed. Enspire was a person affected by the unexplained wealth order, interim freezing order and property freezing order, but that status did not itself justify joinder. Under CPR 19.2(2), the court’s discretion is governed by a two-limbed utility test: whether joinder is desirable to resolve all matters in dispute, or to resolve a connected issue involving the proposed party and an existing party. The applications were proceedings for that purpose, but no disputed or connected issue suitable for resolution in them had been identified.
2. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and PD:CRP deliberately distinguish a person affected from a party. Enspire could apply to vary or discharge each order, had statutory rights to an opportunity to be heard on relevant applications, and could seek a declaration under section 281 in future civil recovery proceedings if it met the statutory criteria. Those protections were adequate on the facts. The court did not need to decide whether the freestanding statement sought from Enspire by the unexplained wealth order was usual or lawful.
3. A prospective order requiring the NCA to give Enspire 14 days’ notice of every future application was neither necessary nor appropriate. It was open-ended and could interfere with urgent or without-notice applications. The existing rights to notice, variation or discharge, and a prior opportunity to be heard provided sufficient protection.
4. Access to documents was refused. The NCA retained investigative autonomy, and the respondents’ receipt of documents reflected their direct obligations as parties and the undertakings given on the original applications. The unexplained wealth order had expired, imposed obligations on the respondents rather than Enspire, and did not create a continuing entitlement to its evidence or the court documents. Moss v UT [2024] EWCA Civ 1414 was applied in rejecting an open-justice justification which merely asserted that disclosure would help protect Enspire’s interests or assist the NCA and court. The application was dismissed and Enspire was ordered to pay the NCA’s costs of £36,755.77 by 4pm on 29 July 2026.

The judgment records earlier High Court orders in the same proceedings made by Swift J and Goose J. No appellate history is stated.