Chief Constable of Essex Police v Fiona Adeniji
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Freedman |
| Judgment Date | 05 July 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 1725 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-000183 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Year | 2022 |
[2022] EWHC 1725 (QB)
Mr Justice Freedman
Case No: QB-2020-000183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT CHELMSFORD
FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HER HONOUR JUDGE MURFITT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Amit Karia (instructed by Clarke Kiernan LLP) for the Second Defendant/Appellant
There was no appearance by the Claimant or by the First Defendant/Respondent
Hearing date: 16 June 2022
Approved Judgment
This judgment will be handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by email and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10.30am on Tuesday 5 July 2022
I Introduction
This is an appeal against an order of HHJ Murfitt given on 24 July 2020. It was an order made on the application of the Chief Constable of Essex Police of an interpleader claim under CPR Part 86 for the Court to determine the ownership of a Porsche McCann Turbo SA motor car, registered number BL17 FKG (“the Porsche”). By the order of the Court of 24 July 2020, the first defendant (“the Respondent”) was declared to be the owner of the Porsche and the Porsche was ordered to be returned to the Respondent. This followed a trial on 13 July 2020. judgment was delivered electronically to the parties on 16 July 2020 and formally handed down on 24 July 2020.
At the trial, the Claimant was neutral and PC Henry Foster attended for it. The Respondent appeared and Mr McKean of Counsel appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant (“the Appellant”). In view of the claimant's role as an interpleader, it has not attended the appeal. Upon the appeal, the Appellant has appeared by Mr Amit Karia, who did not appear at the trial.
There has been no attendance by the Respondent. I refer to an earlier short judgment in which I decided to proceed without the Respondent. The most recent communication was on 16 June 2022 by the Respondent to the court and the parties in which she said the following:
“I have confirmed with the appellant I will not be able to attend remotely today.
I am happy for the appeal to continue in my absence to bring this matter to a conclusion. If present, I would have no further information to present other than the original bundle and documents submitted to court (copy of which I have provided to the appellant).
This whole situation has caused me untold anxiety and the thought of attending another hearing, whether remote or in person, to be tied up in knots by legal professional again is having a detrimental effect on my wellbeing. I therefore ask the Court to continue with the hearing today in my absence, as I am keen for this matter to be concluded.”
In view of this, I decided to conduct the hearing without the Respondent. However, I reserved the right. to revisit that decision in the event that any matter arose that might have made it necessary to revisit the decision to proceed without her.
A brief chronology in respect of this case is as follows:
(1) in September 2016, the Respondent commenced an intimate relationship with Mr Paul Pinnell;
(2) in November 2017, the Respondent acquired the Porsche for a sum of about £69,000, and she became the registered keeper according to DVLA records;
(3) on 9 April 2018, the Respondent signed her agreement to Mr Pinnell becoming the registered keeper.
(4) By November 2018, the relationship of the Respondent and Mr Pinnell had broken down.
(5) The Appellant's case is that on 4 November 2018, Mr Pinnell sold the Porsche to them for the sum of £48,000 of which the sum of £12,000 was in part exchange for an Audi, the sum of £9,000 was paid in cash and the balance was to be paid in 9 monthly instalments of £3,000 each.
(6) On 18 December 2018, the Appellant leased the Porsche to Mr Gojka.
(7) On 27 December 2018, Mr Gojka was arrested in connection with drugs offences and the Porsche was seized by the police.
(8) On 4 December 2018 and further on 20 December 2018, the Respondent reported Mr Pinnell to the police about matters described below, and made a witness statement in connection with the Porsche on 23 December 2018.
(9) On 8 November 2019, the proceedings under CPR 86 were commenced by the Claimant.
(10) On 13 July 2020, the case was tried and subsequently in July 2020, the judgment was handed down and an order made.
There were two issues which were the subject of the judgment. They are both the subject of the appeal. The first was whether the Respondent had made a gift of the Porsche to Mr Pinnell. The second was whether the Appellant acquired title to the Porsche as a bona fide purchaser of the Porsche from Mr Pinnell. The first three grounds are directed to the first issue. In summary, it is submitted that the Judge was wrong to conclude that the Respondent did not transfer title to the Mr Pinnell.
The second issue is the subject of the remaining eight grounds, namely whether the Judge erred in finding that at para. 27 that “ the second defendant [the appellant] failed in my judgement, to adduce adequate evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that he [it] was a bona fide purchaser for value of this vehicle.”
The evidence at the trial comprised a witness statement of PC Foster. Oral evidence was given by Mr Afrim Ujka of the Appellant and by the Respondent herself. There was cross-examination of the Respondent, and it is evident from the judgment that Mr Ujka was asked questions at least by the Judge. Permission to appeal was granted on a paper application by an order on 13 May 2021. As part of the order given permission, it was ordered that “for purposes of the appeal. the appellant has permission to adduce evidence from Mr Sonny Mileham and Mr Paul Pinnell relevant to issues raised in the grounds of appeal.” A recital in the order was in the following terms “upon concluding that it is in accordance with the overriding objective to permit the appellant to adduce additional evidence in light of the issues raised by the appeal.”
In the light of the additional evidence, the Appellant has amended its grounds of appeal to say that the Judge was wrong to draw adverse inferences from the failure of the Appellant to call Mr Sonny Mileham and from Mr Pinnell respectively (grounds 9 and 10), and in this regard, it relies on the statements of Mr Mileham and Mr Pinnell respectively. In this judgment, I shall consider all of the material now before the court including the evidence before the Judge and the new evidence. I shall first consider the criticisms of the judgment on the basis of the evidence available before the Judge, and I shall then consider the effect of the new evidence.
II Background
The background history of the Porsche is as follows. By a purchase agreement made between the Respondent and the Porsche Centre in Sutton Coldfield, the Respondent became the legal owner of the Porsche on 19 November 2017. A sum of £68,600 (in addition to a deposit of £400) was paid from her account by bank transfer. She also became the registered keeper, according to the DVLA records. In September 2016, the Respondent began an intimate relationship with Mr Paul Pinnell. She described herself as being emotionally vulnerable at the time, having been recently widowed. She said that her deceased partner had left a legacy with which she had funded the purchase of the Porsche.
On 9 April 2018, Mr Pinnell became the registered keeper of the Porsche. The respondent signed her agreement. Mr Pinnell became the registered keeper in her evidence. She maintained that her agreement was obtained as a result of coercive control over her. She said that when she agreed to make him the registered keeper, she did not also give up ownership of the Porsche to Mr Pinnell. She said that she obtained his verbal agreement to return the Porsche to her should their relationship come to an end. No money exchanged hands between the Respondent and Mr Pinnell for the car. The Respondent said that she continued to meet the insurance and petrol costs of the car: see the judgment at para. 4.
During the currency of the relationship between the Respondent and Mr Pinnell, there were various text messages passing between them. A full transcript of those texts was prepared by the police. The Judge summarised the position at para 20 as follows.
“The texts from November 2017, shortly before the Porsche was purchased by the respondent, certainly contained fulsome expressions of her love for Mr Pinnell, although she also appears quizzical when he calls her a ‘dirty bitch’ in response to a message saying she has a meeting but will be home soon. Another series of messages passing between the pair on 12–13 June 2018 detail the respondents mixed sentiments that the relationship is over. She expresses her sense of injury at his verbal abuse when she says has only been loyal. She apologises as he tells has ‘f…ing lost her mind’ and when he asserts it is her fault that the relationship is at an end. After a series of mutual recriminations, Mr Pinnell mentions the log book for the car: “I give the log book for car said I sign it but you said no.” He then writes: “I'll come drop you the car: I exactly care.” Ms Adeniji replies “It's okay It's worthless the state it's in” to which he re-joins: “No, I being serious, you can com get it. I don't want it. I'm walking away from it.” Ms Adeniji writes back: “I can't get to it. Sorry xx Park it at the yard xx.”
There were other texts to which the Appellant drew attention on the appeal (which were before HHJ Murfitt) including from Mr Pinnell “I new (sic) you would take my car away x” and from the Respondent “You said I didn't want it but it's fine keep it now I see how it is x” and “It's in...
To continue reading
Request your trial