KB-2024-001295 - [2025] EWHC 3000 (KB)

After the hearing Mrs O’Connor contacted the court asking on D1’s behalf for time to take legal advice on the issue of the extent to which the funds that formed the subject matter of the Claimant’s claim could be used to satisfy the 25 August 2023 restitution order in favour of the victims.

By an order dated 20 June 2025, I concluded that, highly unusually, it was in the interests of justice to permit Mrs O’Connor / D1 a short further period of time to take legal advice. She was granted permission to make written representations through counsel in respect of the terms of the order.

Mr Lennon KC provided written submissions on behalf of D1 dated 29June 2025. D1 served witness statements from himself and his mother dated 30 June 2025. Mr Pons provided responsive submissions dated 7July 2025.

By an order dated 17 July 2025 I acceded to D1’s request, opposed by the Claimant, that the matter should be listed for a further hearing. I took that course, in particular, for the following reasons.

First, it was apparent that there was now an issue between the parties as to whether D1 had, in fact, been personally served with the claim and the evidence relied upon, on 14 August 2024, by the US Marshall Service at the Allenwood facility, as had previously been understood to be the case.

Second, Mr Lennon KC accepted that a further hearing would dispose of the Claimant’s complaint that he had not, in fact, been personally served with the claim or otherwise have a proper opportunity to defend himself.

Third, D1 had advanced a series of legal submissions in support of the proposition that any civil recovery order made by this court should be structured so as to enable D1 to pay to the US authorities the amount demanded under the restitution order. In essence, D1 was concerned by the risk of having his only means to pay his liability under the restitution order being “recovered” by the civil recovery order.

Fourth, the Claimant contended that there remained procedural defects in D1’s position and took issue with D1’s legal analysis in a range of ways.

After the 17 July 2025 order was made, a further hearing was duly listed for 11 November 2025. D1 served further evidence namely the witness statement of Roger Burlingame, solicitor, on behalf of the D1, dated 28 August 2025. The Claimant served the fourth witness statement of Shahzary Mustafa dated 13 October 2025.

I was also provided with very helpful Notes from Mr Lennon KC and Mr Pons dated, respectively, 31 October 2025 and 4 November 2025 and a draft agreed order.