The Patient's son was seeking a Declaration from the Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, that it shall be unlawful for HMRC (the Respondent) to effect forced entry of the property of P or to restrict P's liberty of movement without permission from the Court of Protection. The application was struck out by the DJ and the son appealed.
The complaint arose out of the execution on 29 September 2016 by officers of HMRC of search warrants under section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 authorising the search of two properties owned by P and in one of which P was living at the time. The searches were in connection with suspected VAT frauds relating to companies of which the son and his father were directors. The son was subsequently arrested on 27 October 2016, according to a witness statement of the arresting officer "on suspicion of submitting false documentation to HMRC in order to reclaim VAT repayments contrary to s 72(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the subsequent money laundering offences under sections 327 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002." The son was seeking a Declaration from the Court, under its inherent jurisdiction, that it shall be unlawful for HMRC to effect forced entry of the property of P or to restrict P's liberty of movement without permission from the Court of Protection.
The appeal was dismissed. The President said that the application was totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 was equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the DJ's order striking out the original application remained in place.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
The appeal was dismissed. The President said that the application was totally without merit, misconceived and vexatious. His application under Rule 89 was equally devoid of merit. It must be dismissed, with the consequence that the DJ's order striking out the original application remained in place.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
RSS Feed
