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

Mr Pons had indicated prior to the 9 June 2025 hearing that while the Claimant had no objection to Mrs O’Connor being present at the hearing, he would be likely to object to her participating in it on the basis that she is not a party to the claim and has no direct interest in the property. Further, while she was purporting to speak on behalf of D1, he had repeatedly declined to participate in the proceedings and the information she was seeking to provide was information known to him. On that basis, there did not seem to be any obvious procedural basis for Mrs O’Connor’s participation. Further, D1’s own participation in the hearing would have been barred by Master Dagnall’s order from the CMC, given his failure to file an A of S, unless permission was given.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Pons made the further valid point that difficulties might arise if Mrs O’Connor sought to give evidence in the course of making submissions, as often occurs in the case of unrepresented individuals, not least because the process for securing permission from the Spanish authorities for evidence to be given from overseas set out in PD 32, Annex 3 had not been completed prior to the hearing. Nor had any permission been sought by D1 to file witness evidence, as required.

Matters were compounded by the fact that Mrs O’Connor was joining the hearing by audio link only. She indicated that her video was not working. It was far from clear to me whether D1 was with her during the hearing.

I therefore granted Mrs O’Connor permission to participate in the hearing limited to answering some questions about D1’s understanding of the hearing and setting out his position. She confirmed that she had D1’s authority to act in his behalf. She said he made no admissions as to how the Property had been obtained, but did not object to the making of the recovery order; and was “quite happy to forfeit all his interest in the assets” (meaning he disclaimed all title and rights of ownership over the Property, as D2 and D3 had done). She did not seek an adjournment of the hearing.

Mrs O’Connor had indicated in her email to the court on the morning of 9 June 2025 that she and D1 wanted to ensure that if the civil recovery order was made, the assets to which it related would be diverted to the victims in the US to assist in discharging the restitution order to which D1 was subject.

At my request Mr Pons explained the relevant processes to her during the hearing. He indicated that there has been close contact between the CPS and the US authorities concerning D1 and the status of the forfeiture and restitution orders, but that the US authorities had not taken any steps to enforce the US forfeiture and restitution orders in the UK against the Property, for example by applying to be a party to this claim. He explained that if the order was made, it would remain possible for this issue to be explored through diplomatic channels.