Tchenguiz v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant Robert Tchenguiz and R20 Limited challenged search warrants obtained by the SFO, alleging false representations invalidated the warrants and rendered searches unlawful. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court supported this, quashing the warrants and declaring searches unlawful. They sought to prevent the SFO from contesting trespass liability based on res judicata, which was disallowed. Eder J ruled against them, permitting the SFO to withdraw its liability concession. The appeal was dismissed, with the court holding that the Divisional Court’s declaration of unlawfulness did not address private law liability.
Approved Judgment
Lord Justice Pitchford :
The issue raised
On 17 May 2011 the appellants, Robert Tchenguiz and R20 Limited, commenced a claim for judicial review against the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (“the SFO”) and others in which they sought review of decisions to apply to the Central Criminal Court for search warrants relating to a home and business address, the decision of the Central Criminal Court to grant the warrants, and the decision made by or on behalf of the Commissioner of the City of London Police to arrest and bail Mr Tchenguiz on suspicion of offences of fraud. In parallel proceedings companies associated with Robert Tchenguiz, brother of Vincent Tchenguiz brought similar claims. Mr Vincent Tchenguiz was named as an interested party and subsequently obtained leave to proceed as a claimant. The current appeal only concerns the proceedings instituted by these appellants.
In a judgment of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (The President, Sir John Thomas and Silber J), handed down on 31 July 2012 ( [2012] EWHC 2254 (Admin) ), the court held, among other things, that in making its application for search warrants to HHJ Worsley QC at the Central Criminal Court the SFO had made material non-disclosure and factual misrepresentations which vitiated the grant of the warrants. In the case of these appellants the order sealed on 20 September 2012 (the “Order”) provided, so far as material, as follows:
“UPON HEARING [counsel] … the court:
QUASHES the search warrants executed on 9 March 2011 at the claimants’ home and business premises … on the grounds set out in the judgment; and consequently,
DECLARES the entries, searches and seizures conducted pursuant to the warrants to be unlawful on the grounds set out in the judgment;
…
TRANSFERS, pursuant to CPR Part 54.20 any actions by the claimants … for damages to a judge to be assigned of the Queen’s Bench Division;
ORDERS that there should be a directions hearing for the further conduct of the action before the assigned judge, such hearing to be listed in the usual way during the Michaelmas term 2012 and the claimants shall serve Heads of Claim (so far as they are known) and proposed directions 21 days in advance of the hearing, and the [SFO] shall serve [its] response to those heads of claim and proposed directions 7 days in advance of the hearing. …”
On 19 November 2012 the appellants, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the Order, submitted a document called “Outline Heads of Clai