The Court of Appeal dismissed Nida Investments Limited’s appeal against High Court orders freezing certain company assets and appointing a receiver. It also struck out the company’s motion to admit new evidence and awarded costs to the Criminal Assets Bureau against the company.
In an ex tempore ruling delivered on 29 May 2025, the court decided that Agne Khan, the company’s sole director and shareholder, could not represent it in the appeal without a lawyer. The judgment says Khan was not present in court when the appeal and new-evidence motion were to be advanced, and no one appeared for the company.
The appeal concerned orders made by the High Court on 18 December 2024 following an application by the Bureau under sections 3 and 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, as amended. The section 3 order froze certain company assets; the section 7 order appointed a receiver in relation to the company’s property. An initial order under section 2 had been made on 21 June 2023.
The Court of Appeal applied the general rule that a company must be represented by a qualified lawyer. It considered whether exceptional circumstances justified allowing a director to represent the company, but concluded there would be no manifest injustice in requiring Nida Investments to have legal representation. Khan’s central argument was that the company could not afford a lawyer because its assets were frozen, and that she personally could not meet the solicitor’s requested payments. The court said lack of funds was not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance.
The ruling also noted that section 6 of the Act permits an application to release some frozen assets, including to meet legal expenses, but the Bureau’s counsel confirmed that no such application had been made for the company in these proceedings.
The court did not decide whether Khan’s notice of appeal was validly before it, saying that issue did not need to be resolved because no one was present to advance the appeal. The judges had considered the proposed new evidence and concluded it did not fundamentally change the evidential picture before the High Court when it made the orders. The motion to admit that evidence was struck out.