The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by Mary Cash against an order allowing a receiver to sell the house where she and her children had lived.
In a judgment delivered on 18 February 2025, Ms Justice Butler said the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in appointing a receiver with full power of sale over the property. The appeal concerned only that later sale order. An earlier finding that the house constituted proceeds of crime had already been upheld on appeal.
The High Court made the sale order on 17 April 2024 under section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. It directed Cash to give vacant possession, while staying enforcement until 2 September 2024. After an extended stay was refused, Cash and her family left before that date. The Bureau argued the appeal had become moot, but the Court of Appeal rejected that argument: Cash had complied with the order while appealing it, and the receiver’s power of sale had not yet been exercised.
Cash argued that the High Court had not given proper weight to the risk of homelessness and disruption to her three children. She also offered to arrange insurance for the house if a possession and sale order were not made. The Court of Appeal said the equitable principles governing receivership required the court to consider the family’s occupation and the likely effects of a sale. But those difficulties did not, by themselves, prevent an order once the property had been determined to be proceeds of crime.
The judgment said the High Court judge had shown sympathy for the family and extended the time to leave to allow the children to complete the school year and facilitate a move before the next school year began. Butler J. found no basis to conclude that the judge had failed to consider the family’s circumstances or the discretionary nature of the order.
The court also rejected the challenge concerning insurance. The High Court had considered Cash’s offer, but the evidence before it was that she was unlikely to be able to obtain cover. The Court of Appeal said she had not identified an insurer or broker prepared to insure the house in the circumstances.
The court dismissed the appeal. It proposed making no order as to costs for the appeal, while allowing either party 21 days from perfection of the order to file written submissions seeking a different costs order, with the other party then having 10 days to respond.