Anthony Gold

Get in touch

020 7940 4060

  • People
  • Insights
  • What to Expect
  • Contact Us
Anthony Gold
  • Services
    • Housing And Property Disputes
      • Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Services For Commercial Landlords, Tenants And Agents
      • Services For Residential Landlords And Agents
      • Housing And Tenancy Issues
      • Judicial Review
    • Injury And Medical Claims
      • Life Changing Injuries
      • Medical Claims
      • Personal Injury
      • Child Abuse
    • Family And Relationships
      • Starting Relationships
      • Ending Relationships
      • After Relationships End
      • Useful Contacts
      • Religious & Cultural Issues
      • Family Law FAQs
      • Family Dispute Resolution
      • Modern Families And Surrogacy Arrangements
    • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
      • Business Agreements
      • Business Disagreements
      • Commercial Property
      • Commercial Property Disputes
      • Leasehold Services
      • Residential Property
    • Wills, Estates & Court Of Protection
      • Wills, Trusts And Estates
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Capacity And Court Of Protection
    • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
      • Personal Claims
      • Professional Negligence
      • Business Disagreements
      • Claims Against Trusts And Estates
      • Employment
    • People
    • Insights
    • What to Expect
    • Contact Us
  • Get in touch

    020 7940 4060

  • Housing and Property Disputes
  • Injury and Medical Claims
  • Family and Relationships
  • Conveyancing, Property & Business Services
  • Wills, Estates & Court of Protection
  • Dispute Resolution & Employment Law
  • Property disputes
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies
  • Rights of way, boundaries, covenants and easements
  • Party wall disputes
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Services for commercial landlords, tenants and agents
  • Breach of covenant
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Lease renewals
  • Services for residential landlords and agents
  • Regulatory issues
  • Repossession
  • Agents (including letting agreements)
  • Housing and tenancy issues
  • Repairs
  • Repossession and eviction
  • Rehousing and homelessness
  • Judicial review
  • Life changing injuries
  • Brain injury
  • Spinal cord injury
  • Amputation
  • Psychiatric injury
  • Fatal injuries and inquests
  • Medical claims
  • Surgical claims
  • Non-Surgical Claims
  • Birth injury
  • Child health and paediatrics
  • GP and primary care treatment
  • Private healthcare
  • Personal injury
  • Road traffic accidents
  • Accidents abroad
  • Accidents at work
  • Faulty products
  • Public liability and other accidents
  • Child abuse
  • Child abuse
  • Starting relationships
  • Pre nuptial agreements
  • Pre civil partnership and same sex relationship agreements
  • Cohabitation and living together agreements
  • Property ownership agreements
  • Ending relationships
  • Divorce and separation
  • Ending a civil partnership
  • Ending cohabitation
  • Agreeing child arrangements
  • Agreeing finance and assets
  • International arrangements
  • After relationships end
  • Abduction and leave to remove children
  • Changing and challenging parenting agreements
  • Changing and challenging financial agreements
  • Grandparents’ rights
  • Useful Contacts
  • Financial planners
  • Referral to Pension Actuaries and Pension on Divorce Experts (PODEs)
  • Tax Specialists
  • Financial Neutrals
  • Counselling
  • Conveyancing
  • Wills
  • Religious & cultural issues
  • Jewish family law
  • Islamic family law
  • Family Law FAQs
  • Children FAQs
  • Cohabitation Agreement FAQs
  • No-Fault Divorce and Separation FAQs
  • Financial Issues FAQs
  • Pre-Marital Contracts FAQs
  • Family Dispute Resolution
  • Roundtable Meetings
  • One Solicitor Solution
  • Mediation
  • Collaborative Practice
  • Arbitration
  • Second Opinions
  • Private FDR’s
  • Early Neutral Evaluation (‘ENE’)
  • Modern Families and Surrogacy Arrangements
  • Domestic Surrogacy
  • International Surrogacy
  • Business agreements
  • Business advice
  • Employment
  • Mergers and acquisitions
  • Supplier contracts
  • Business disagreements
  • Commercial property
  • Commercial Sale and Purchases
  • Commercial loans and mortgages
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Commercial advice for landlords and tenants
  • Planning advice
  • Mortgage debentures and securities
  • Commercial property disputes
  • Breach of covenant
  • Dilapidations and failing to repair
  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession
  • Lease renewals
  • Leasehold services
  • Lease extension
  • Collective enfranchisement
  • Service charge disputes
  • Repairs to leaseholds
  • Right to manage
  • Residential property
  • Residential Sale and Purchases
  • Property Investment: plot developers & plot buyers
  • Remortgages
  • Auction: sales and purchases
  • Ownership matters and transfers
  • Wills, trusts and estates
  • Making a will
  • Applying for probate
  • Distributing the estate
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Trust advice
  • Tax planning and advice
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Appointing a deputy
  • Removing a deputy
  • Arranging lasting power of attorney
  • Gifts and legacies
  • Managing assets under a deputyship
  • Care issues
  • Removing lasting and enduring power of attorney
  • Special educational needs
  • Capacity and court of protection
  • Personal claims
  • Debt recovery
  • Ownership disputes and shares in property
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Building disputes
  • Professional negligence
  • Professional Negligence
  • Property Fraud
  • Investment Fraud
  • Business disagreements
  • Building disputes
  • Civil and commercial mediation
  • Claims against directors
  • Contract disputes
  • Debt recovery
  • Directors personal liabilities
  • Employment
  • Professional negligence
  • Claims against trusts and estates
  • Contesting a will
  • Losses caused by trustees
  • Employment
  • Employment
  • Unfair or Wrongful Dismissal
  • Settlement Agreements
Anthony Gold > Blog > Property litigation in the criminal courts: Parker v Financial Conduct Authority & Anor [2021] EWCA Crim 956

Robin Stewart

robin.stewart@anthonygold.co.uk

Share
  • July 12, 2021
  • Blog
  • By  Robin Stewart 
  • 0 comments

Property litigation in the criminal courts: Parker v Financial Conduct Authority & Anor [2021] EWCA Crim 956


Many legal disputes fall neatly in one category such as civil, family or criminal law. After completing their training most modern-day lawyers, and this includes judges, tend to focus on one main area of law, even if they cover a wide range of types of cases within that area. Problems can occur when a case straddles two normally distinct areas of law.

A recent appeal in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, Parker v  Financial Conduct Authority & Anor [2021] EWCA Crim 956, provides an example of a case where the criminal courts had to determine an issue which was really a matter of property litigation, a branch of civil law which specialist criminal lawyers might often have no experience of.

Background to Parker v FCA

The appeal was brought by Mr Parker, and it concerned a house which he claimed he was the majority owner of under a trust. Mr Parker had lost money in various fraudulent investments schemes at the hands of Mr Michael Moore. Mr Moore had been convicted of multiple offences under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. None of the offences for which Mr Moore was convicted related to Mr Parker’s investments, but the appeal court said that Mr Parker, a widower in his eighties, fit the typical profile of Mr Moore’s victims.

After Mr Parker had already lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in sham investment schemes, Mr Moore had invited Mr Parker to invest in a large house in Maidstone called Bockingford Court. Mr Parker was told that he and Mr Moore (and later Mr Moore’s stepfather) would own a percentage in the property corresponding to their financial contributions to the purchase, with the profits to be shared between them after it was refurbished and sold.

What Mr Parker did not know was that the property was bought in the sole name of Mr Moore’s stepfather, Reverend Higgs, and that Mr Moore intended to live in the house with his wife. Money had been transferred from Mr Moore’s company to his stepfather in order to convince a mortgage lender that Rev Higgs had the cash to pay the deposit. No paperwork was produced to record Mr Parker’s interest in the Property at this time.

When Mr Moore was convicted in relation to other fraudulent dealings, the Financial Conduct Authority asked the Crown Court to make a confiscation order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In those proceedings the Court assessed that Mr Moore’s total benefit from criminal conduct was just over £2 million. However, with only £255 in his bank account, Mr Moore’s only substantial asset was his share in Bockingford Court. That property was initially valued at £825,000 and it was later sold for slightly more than that.

Mr Parker’s interest in Bockingford Court

In the Crown Court, Mr Parker had intervened in the confiscation proceedings and argued that he had a 70% share in the property under a constructive trust. His lawyers argued that Mr Parker obtained this interest under a ‘common intention constructive trust’ because there was an express agreement made between himself and Mr Moore about the use of Mr Parker’s money to invest in the property. The Court of Appeal records that Mr Parker had “relied on the principle that a common intention constructive trust will arise where a party has acted to their detriment in reliance upon a common intention that he or she will acquire an interest in a property”.

The judge in the Crown Court found against Mr Parker, ruling that no trust interest for Mr Parker had been created, and that he was therefore just another one of Mr Moore’s victims. The Court of Appeal was critical of the judge’s reasoning here – finding it to be brief and unsatisfactory – but also sympathetic, noting near the start of the judgement that it was unfortunate that Judges in the Crown Court were required to make such determinations on “without having (or being expected to have) expertise in the law of trusts, and without necessarily having the assistance of specialist counsel” [paragraph 10].

The Court of Appeal reassessed the shares in the property as 70% for Mr Parker, and 15% each for Mr Moore and his wife. That might sound like an excellent result for Mr Parker, save for two harsh realities – firstly, Mr Parker was defrauded of almost £1,000,000 in total and there was no prospect of compensation for his other losses. Secondly, Bockingford Court had already been sold, and the proceeds of sale distributed among other victims of Mr Moore, the courts service, the FCA and Mr Moore’s wife. The Court of Appeal explained that it could not fully correct the consequences of the erroneous decision made in the Crown Court – the other victims could not be required to return the compensation they had received – and a claim in the civil courts against Mrs Moore would be required to pursue repayment from her.

Lessons to learn

Concluding her judgment, Lady Justice Andrews said that Mr Parker had been badly let down by the criminal justice system, and recommended that the Lord Chancellor treat with sympathy any request from Mr Parker for compensation.

Lady Justice Andrews also made interesting suggestions for how to avoid the messy outcome of that case happening again, saying that the case:

“raise[d] wider concerns about the fairness of the requirement that issues concerning the beneficial entitlement to property in the context of confiscation proceedings under POCA should always be determined in the Crown Court, instead of there being at least an option to transfer the more complex cases into the business and property courts.”

She suggested that if such matters could be transferred to another court “there would be a greater chance of the judge having relevant expertise, and of the judge having the benefit of the assistance of experienced specialist counsel”. She suggested as an alternative that specialist judges could sit in the Crown Court to hear such cases.

Co-ownership disputes

Disputes about co-ownership and trusts of land are already dealt with in the courts in a confusing range of ways. The County Court will hear cases under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (known as TOLATA), but more complicated or valuable cases are heard in the Business and Property Courts, part of the High Court. A beneficiary may apply to the court for a declaration of their interest (or other more practical remedies) in those civil courts.

The First-tier Tribunal deals with referrals from the Land Registry where there is a dispute about the registration of a trust interest. There have also been calls for the Family Court to be given powers to deal with this area of law (which makes a lot of sense given that a property dispute between unmarried partners is really a form of family law dispute).

There certainly are some Crown Court judges whose professional background gives them sufficient expertise to rule on property ownership disputes, but Lady Justice Andrews’ proposals merit consideration, and there is a good argument for rationalising how ownership disputes are dealt with more generally.

The interaction of property and criminal law

Co-owned properties and confiscation of criminal proceeds presents just one example of how criminal law and property litigation can interact. Criminal offences relating to HMOs and social housing fraud are dealt with in the criminal courts, but often an understanding landlord and tenant law is required to properly prosecute or represent defendants in these cases. In prosecutions arising from breaches of planning enforcement notices there is a particular need to understand the property law context, especially where the prosecutor seeks a confiscation order to recover rent.

The traditional boundaries between criminal and civil law break down entirely in the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber when it deals with rent repayment orders and appeals against financial penalties under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. These cases involve punishment for landlords who commit a criminal offence, and although the criminal procedure rules do not apply and the tribunal has not adopted the criminal rules of evidence, a criminal law ‘mindset’ is needed when applying the criminal standard of proof.

The erosion of traditional distinctions of civil and criminal legal practice creates a challenge not just for judges, but also for lawyers who aspire to be specialists. The solution in my opinion is to look beyond outdated ideas of what constitutes a legal specialism, and to develop the skills needed to advise clients whose legal problems fall between traditional sectors of the legal profession, while working collaboratively with other lawyers and experts with different professional experience to ensure that clients benefit from a range of perspectives when required.

The messy, and for Mr Parker very sad, outcome of Parker v FCA demonstrates that legal problems do not always fit neatly into categories. At Anthony Gold Solicitors we can draw on the expertise of colleagues from a range of legal disciplines and our experience of claims which involve a mix of property law and criminal law, such as regulatory criminal law relating to rented property, civil claims relating to property fraud, and co-ownership disputes of all types.

*Disclaimer: The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, express or implied.*

Robin Stewart

robin.stewart@anthonygold.co.uk

Get in touch

Call, email or use a contact form – whichever suits you. We’ll let you know the best person to help you get started.

Call or Email

020 7940 4060

mail@anthonygold.co.uk

No comments

Add your comment

We need your name and email address to make sure you’re a real person. We won’t share your email address with anyone else or send you spam. Please complete fields marked with *.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code

Related Services

  • Service charge disputes

  • Dilapidations and failing to repair

  • Building disputes

  • Forfeiture and recovery of possession

  • Repossession

  • Repossession and eviction

  • Ownership disputes and shares in property

  • Challenging the decisions of councils and public bodies

About the author

  • Robin Stewart

Meet the team

  • Housing and Property Disputes

You might also like...

  • Can a rent repayment order be paid in instalments?

  • Blanket bans on pets in rented properties

  • Letting agent fees: can landlords and agents charge more than £50 for a change of tenant?

Contact Us

Request a Call Back

About Us

  • Accessibility
  • Compliance
  • Responsible Business
  • Equality & Diversity
  • History
  • Our Beliefs
  • List of LLP members

Careers

  • Trainee Solicitors
  • Vacancies

Social Media

  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on LinkedIn
  • Follow us on Instagram
  • View our YouTube channel

Online Payments

  • Payment page through Worldpay

Accredited by

Lexel Parctice
76000Award

Copyright © Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP. All rights reserved. Anthony Gold Solicitors LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC433560 and is authorised and regulated by the by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration Number 810601