The High Court rejected a defendant’s application to set aside an order allowing the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) to serve proceedings in England, holding that the statutory claim falls outside the Brussels Regulation’s rules for civil and commercial matters.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Feeney on 24 May 2007, addressed a preliminary jurisdiction issue. The CAB is pursuing a claim under section 16B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 for a corrupt-enrichment order. The judgment describes the claim as based on an allegation that the defendant benefited from obtaining planning permission as a result of, or in connection with, corrupt conduct. The court did not determine that allegation or decide whether any corrupt enrichment occurred.
The defendant, identified in the redacted judgment as J. W. P. L., had entered a conditional appearance to contest jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the Brussels Regulation applied because the proceedings were civil and commercial, and that the company was domiciled in the United Kingdom. On that basis, it said the High Court should not have authorised service outside Ireland under Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The CAB argued that the proceedings were brought under statutory powers in the public interest and were not a civil and commercial matter under the Regulation. The court agreed. It found that the CAB was exercising rights and powers conferred by legislation, including powers unavailable to private litigants, and that a private claim for unjust enrichment was not an equivalent to the statutory corrupt-enrichment application.
The judgment noted that the statutory claim did not require the CAB to establish that the defendant’s alleged enrichment was at the CAB’s expense, to prove a loss, or to show a special or fiduciary relationship. It also referred to procedural powers and evidential provisions available under the proceeds-of-crime legislation.
The court concluded that the proceedings were outside Article 1 of the Brussels Regulation and that it had jurisdiction to entertain them. The decision resolved only whether the Regulation governed the service and jurisdiction question before the court. It did not grant a corrupt-enrichment order or determine the underlying claim.