James Arthur Shayler v Maria Jane Yeo

RESTRICTION- BENEFICIAL INTEREST-CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST- RESULTING TRUST-PROCEEDS OF CRIME - ILLEGALITY Cases referred to Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 . Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 . Kliers v. Schmerler [2018] EWHC 1350 (Ch) Al-Dowaisan v. Al-Salam [2019] EWHC 301 (Ch) Hudson v. Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 Law of Property Act 1925 s. 53 Drug Trafficking Act 1994 Snell’s Equity (34 th ed.)

1. The Applicant, Mr Shayler applied to HM Land Registry for the entry of a restriction in form N on the title to 25 Naseby Close, Wellingborough (“the Property”). The application for a form N restriction was not accepted by HM Land Registry but the application was accepted as an application for restrictions in Form A and Form II. Mr Shayler claims to have a beneficial interest in the Property under a constructive or resulting trust. Ms Yeo is the registered proprietor of the Property. Ms Yeo denies that Mr Shayler has any beneficial interest in the Property and has objected to the application. Factual background

2. Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo were in a relationship from about 1982 until November 2005 (after which date Ms Yeo says she and Mr Shayler never lived together) or 2009, when Mr Shayler says the relationship came to an end. Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo have three children, Danielle (born 24 th February 1986), Lauren (born 7 th September 1991) and Jack.

3. By a transfer dated 7 th June 1996 the Property was conveyed to Mrs Maureen Crooks, Mr Shayler’s mother (“Mrs Crooks”). The purchase price was £47,500. The Property was mortgaged to Woolwich Building Society to secure a loan of £15,000 used towards the purchase costs.

4. The parties and their children lived at the Property from when it was purchased until November 2005 (save for a period from 1999 to May 2002 when Mr Shayler was in prison). Mrs Cooks did not live at the Property. Ms Yeo continued to live at the Property after November 2005 until some date after 2010. There is a dispute as to when she moved out but that is not relevant to the current issue of whether Mr Shayler has an interest, the size of Mr Shayler’s interest not being a matter for the Tribunal. Lauren Shayler currently lives at the Property with her partner, Mr Reynolds.

5. By a transfer dated 22 nd December 1998 Mrs Crooks transferred the Property to Ms. Yeo for no consideration. Ms Yeo was registered at HM Land Registry as proprietor on 27 th January1998, which suggests that the transfer was incorrectly dated. Mr Shayler says that the transfer was executed on 22 nd December 1997. On 27 th January 1998 a restriction was entered on the title to the Property. The restriction was to the effect that no disposition of the Property was to be registered without the consent of Mrs Crooks. Mrs Crooks’s address was given on the application to enter the restriction, as the Property.

6. On 19 th August 1999 Mr Shayler pleaded guilty at Northampton Crown Court to a charge of conspiracy to supply a Class A controlled drug. On 23 rd August 1999 he was sentenced to a term of 7 ½ years imprisonment. HH Judge Francis Allen in his sentencing remarks said that how much of the Class A drugs was involved was unknown but thousands of pounds worth was distributed. The learned Crown Court judge said that Mr Shayler was the organiser and £10,000, though probably far too little, was the bare minimum of drugs of Class A that were involved.

7. On 20 th August 1999 Detective Constable JJ Williams of the Financial Investigation Unit, National Crime Squad made a Prosecutors Statement under s. 11 of the Drug Trafficking 1994 Act (“ the 1994 Act ”). That document included the following statements: (1) On 20 th February 1995 an account was opened at National Savings in the names of Mr Shayler’s daughter, Daniella and Mrs Crooks. (2) A total of £31,205.20 was paid into the account, made up of (a) an initial cheque deposit of £12,500 (b) cash deposits totalling £11,705 made between 5 th June 1995 and 26th March 1996 (c) further cheque deposits of £5,297.20 and £1,703. (3) The deposits to the account were made from the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s drug trafficking and so represented gifts by him under section 8 of the 1994 Act . (4) On 29 th April 1996 a crossed warrant of £32,509.60 (being the total amount paid into the account plus £1.304.40 interest) was paid into Mrs Crooks’s account numbered 03119947 at National Westminster Bank. The warrant cleared on 2 nd May 1996. (5) The purchase of the Property was funded as to £32,500 from Mrs Crooks’s account 03119947 with the balance of £15,000 funded by monies borrowed on mortgage from Woolwich Building Society in the name of Mrs Crooks. (5) The mortgage was cleared by payments of £10,000 on 4 th March 1997 and £4,000 on 7 th July 1997. (6) The Property was purchased solely from the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s drug trafficking and on the transfer to Ms Yeo on 27 th January 1998 represented a gift to her by Mr Shayler under s. 8 of the 1994 Act . (7) The payments to the National Savings Account and the payments of £10,000 and £4,000 to the mortgage account were proceeds of drug trafficking (8) Mr Shayler’s realisable assets included the Property, which was valued at £55,000. The total value of Mr Shayler’s realisable assets was £55,825.11. (9) Information from HM Revenue and Customs indicated that since 1989 Mr Shayler had paid no income tax and had been in receipt of unemployment benefit. The unemployment benefit was paid into Ms Yeo’s account at Yorkshire Bank.

8. On 23 rd December 1999 Mr Michael Macdona, a solicitor, sent to the court manager at Northampton Crown Court a “Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement” under section 11 of the 1994 Act . His covering letter said that a copy had been sent to the Crown Prosecution Statement. That document included the following statements: (1) Mr Shayler did not accept he had no legitimate income. He had dealt in a variety of clothing and perfumery items and had worked in the roofing trade for previous 6 years. (2) The National Savings account was an account covering legitimate deposits and withdrawals made by Mrs Crooks. (3) The opening cheque deposit of £12,500 represented the proceeds of the sale of jewellery that belonged to Mrs Shayler’s step-grandmother, Joyce Crooks (4) The deposit of £5,297.20 was from remortgaging Mrs Crooks’s house. (5) The deposit of £1,703 was of part of a personal loan obtained from National Westminster Bank on 7 th February 1996. (6) The cash payments of £11,705 derived from Mrs Crooks’s income in the form of maintenance paid by her ex-husband and payments by lodgers occupying two rooms in Mrs Crooks’s house. (7) The £32,509.60 paid out of Mrs Crooks’s bank account was not a gift from Mr Shayler. (8) The transfer of the Property from Mrs Crooks to Ms Yeo was not a gift by Mr Shayler (9) The £14,000 used to redeem the Woolwich mortgage was from funds held by Ms Yeo’s mother, Maureen Yeo and were from legitimate sources (10) The Property “never has been or will be” a realisable asset of Mr Shayler.

9. On 4 th January 2000 a confiscation order was made against Mr Shayler under section 2 of the 1994 Act . The sum confiscated was £48,325.11. and the term of imprisonment Mr Shayler would serve in default of payment was 18 months to run consecutively to the term of imprisonment which he was to serve for the offence of which he had been convicted. A notice on the face of the confiscation order stated that serving any term of imprisonment in default of payment would not expunge the confiscation order, which could still be enforced by other means. The confiscation order was accompanied by a certificate which certified that the value of the proceeds of crime was £65,000 and the amount which might be realised at the time of the making of the order was £48,325.11. The certificate did not state the matters which were relevant in the determination of the court as to the amount which might be realised.

10. Mr Shayler in an email he sent to the Northampton Crown Court on 22 nd October 2024 seeking information about a “plea deal” he said the Crown offered to him in August 1999, said that the figure of £48,325.11 was made up of the £47,500 paid for the Property, £485.96 monies in his possession and £339.15 from a Halifax account in the name of Ms Yeo.

11. On 31 st May 2000 Ms Yeo charged the Property by way of legal mortgage to Abbey National to secure a loan of £35,000. Stapletons, a firm of licensed conveyancers acted for Ms Yeo on the mortgage. The monthly repayments as at 31 st May 2000 were £233.39. Mrs Crooks signed a Form 77 application dated 8 th April 2000 to withdraw the restriction on the title to the Property. The form was sent to HM Land Registry on 1 st June 2000 by Stapletons. together with the application to register a charge to Abbey National. HM Land Registry gave notice to Mrs Crooks of the application to withdraw the restriction on 5 th June 2000. The notice was addressed to Mrs Crooks at the Property. The restriction was withdrawn and the Abbey National charge was registered. Mrs Crooks did not make any subsequent application to register a similar restriction.

12. It is common ground that the monies loaned by Abbey National were used towards paying the amount of the confiscation order and the confiscation order was paid. It is also agreed between the parties that Ms Yeo’s mother, Maureen Yeo paid £7,000 towards the confiscation order and Ms Yeo’s uncle, Bernard Dudley paid £4,000. There is a dispute as to whether Mr Shayler provided the monies that Maureen Yeo and Bernard Dudley paid.

13. There is no dispute that Ms Yeo paid the Abbey National mortgage instalments, though Mr Shayler says that on his release from prison in May 2002, he refunded Ms Yeo the amount of the instalments she had paid to that date and that from then until 2009, he provided Ms Yeo with funds to pay the mortgage instalments.

14. Mr Shayler produced an undated letter he wrote to Mrs Crooks while he was in HM Prison Blundeston. He was imprisoned there between 17 th March 2000 and 29 th June 2001 so the letter must have been written in this period. In the letter Mr Shayler wrote, “At least I have a lovely family and a lovely home that they can’t take from me”.

15. Records obtained from HM Revenue and Customs show that Mr Shayler was unemployed in the tax year 2003/2004 and was employed by Whitefriars Building Contractors Ltd and by CG Osborn Construction Ltd in the year 2004/2005. He was unemployed in the year 2005/2006. Mr Shayler’s NatWest bank account shows regular credits from CG Osborn Ltd ending in December 2005, then from July 2006 to January 2007 and from October 2007 to December 2008.

16. On 25 th November 2005 Mr Shayler left the Property, following a domestic incident. He was subsequently convicted of assaulting Ms Yeo and the court made an order banning him from going within a certain distance of the Property.

17. On 6 th January 2006 Mr Shayler completed the purchase of 24 Blaydon Walk, Wellingborough. He sold this property on 19 th October 2006. On 19 th December 2006 Mr Shayler purchased 6 Bacon Road, Wellingborough.

18. Mr Shayler was convicted in 2008 of two counts of conspiracy to steal. On 30 th April 2008 he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for the offences. A second confiscation order was made following this conviction. No copies of the prosecutor’s statement or a reply thereto by Mr Shayler or of the confiscation order were in evidence. However, Mr Shayler accepts that he did not say to the prosecuting authorities at this time that he had a beneficial interest in the Property. An officer of Northampton Crown Court informed Ms Yeo by email on 5 th October 2023 that the confiscation order was in the sum of £67,411.

19. Mr Shayler says that he and Ms Yeo were separated in 2005/2006 but that they were together again from 2006 until the relationship came to an end in 2009. Ms Yeo denies that she and Mr Shayler were together in a relationship after November 2025 but she accepted that after December 2006 she had stayed overnight with Mr Shayler at 5 Bacon Road on a few occasions and had gone on holiday with him and their children. Ms Yeo said that Mr Shayler began a relationship with his current partner in 2007.

20. On 24 th April 2010 Mr Shayler sold 5 Bacon Road for £185,000. He paid the second confiscation order out of the proceeds. Mr Shayler was released from prison on licence on 29 th April 2010.

21. On Mr Shayler’s instructions DFA Law sent a letter dated 5 th October 2010 to Ms Yeo. That letter states “Our client believes that he has a 50 per cent claim on [the Property], although he would not seek to realise that until either sale or when Jack reaches 18, or by agreement on an earlier date. Our client would prefer not to have to issue proceedings to deal with this matter and we wonder therefore whether you have any proposals to make in this respect.” The writer asked that the letter be passed to Ms Yeo’s legal representatives to respond. Ms Yeo replied on 26 th October 2010 denying that Mr Shayler had any interest. DFA Law wrote again to Ms Yeo on 2 nd November 2010 saying that Ms Yeo had not referred to “significant repairs and renovation works” carried out at Mr Shayler’s expense following his release from prison in 2002 and to his “significant contributions to the mortgage”. The writer asked if Ms Yeo disputed that the works and contributions took place. I have not seen a reply to this letter. Mr Shayler did not pursue a claim to an interest in the Property until he made the current application that is before the Tribunal.

22. In 2021 Mr Shayler telephoned HM Land Registry to speak about the removal of the restriction. According to a letter from HM Land Registry to Mr Shayler dated 22 nd June 2021, Mr Shayler asserted that he had a beneficial interest in the Property and indicated that he did not believe Mrs Crooks was aware of the application to remove the restriction and did not receive the notice of receipt of the restriction sent by HM Land Registry on 5 th June 2000. In cross-examination, Mr Shayler said that his contact with HM Land Registry was “to do with the restriction not being put back on” and the notice referred to was a notice to re-apply the restriction. He stated that by law, HM Land Registry had to offer Mrs Crooks the option to have the restriction re-entered.

23. In his application for the registration of a restriction on the Property, Mr Shayler said that the restriction was “removed in 2000 at the direction of the Applicant through his mother, to enable a loan to be raised against the Property …secured by a mortgage to allow the applicant to pay a confiscation order that had been imposed upon him by the Crown Court in addition to a custodial sentence”. Application and Objection

24. Mr Shayler lodged with HM Land Registry an undated Form RX1 applying for the entry of a restriction in Form N on the title to the Property. HM Land Registry accepted the application on 8 th June 2023 as an application for restrictions in Forms A and II. Ms Yeo objected to that application by letters dated 25 th July 2023 and 27 th July 2023.

25. Ms Yeo told HM Land Registry in her letter of 25 th July 2023 that Mr Shayler had purchased the Property in Mrs Crooks’s name and had made all the mortgage payments. She said that it was proved in the confiscation proceedings that the purchase was funded by the proceeds of crime. Ms Yeo said that she was given 18 months by the court to “buy the property back in my own right with clean money or 100% of the property would be confiscated”. Ms Yeo said she decided to go ahead and paid £48,000 to buy all the Property, at which point the Property was “released” to her and Mr Shayler lost all rights. Ms Yeo said that on the advice of the solicitor, Mr Macdona, and to ensure Mr Shayler would not have any right in the Property against which future “fines” could be made, she paid the mortgage instalments.

26. The matter was referred to the Tribunal on 12 th September 2023. Counsel’s advice

27. Mr Shayler lodged at HMLR with his Form RX1 applying for the restriction, an Advice of Mr Neil Vickery of counsel dated 30 th May 2023. In the concluding paragraph of his manuscript statement accompanying the RX1, Mr Shayler wrote “Please also consider the following 28 pages of detailed advice prepared by Neil Vickery (Barrister) also attached for your consideration”. The attachment was a full copy of the Advice of counsel.

28. The Advice is a substantial document, being 28 pages long and running to 84 paragraphs. Mr Vickery was instructed on a direct access basis through a charitable organisation called “Advocate” that finds free legal assistance for members of the public from volunteer barristers. In paragraph 1, Mr Vickery said that he had spoken with Mr Shayler on the telephone on 4 th May 2023 and again more briefly on 22 nd May 2023.

29. At paragraph 4.2 Mr Vickery set out the source of the funds in the National Savings account in the names of Mrs Crooks and Danielle. These were “4.2.1 £12,500 cheque drawn by Mr Shayler on a Britannia Building Society account in Mr Shayler’s name 4.2.2 £11,705 which Mr Shayler deposited into the [National Savings] account between June 1995 and March 1996 4.2.3 Deposits of £5,297.20 and £1,703 by Mrs Crooks”.

30. At paragraph 8 Mr Vickery said that he was instructed that Mr Shayler paid the monthly mortgage instalments to the Woolwich Building Society until the mortgage was paid off in full on 7 th July 1997. At paragraph 9 Mr Vickery set out his instructions as to the source of the lump sum payments of £10,000 on 4 th March 1997 and £4,000 on 7 th July 1997 used to discharge the Woolwich as follows: “Those lump sums I am instructed were paid by cheques drawn on an account in the name of Maureen Yeo, [Ms Yeo’s] mother although the prosecutor’s statement says the source of these funds was unidentified. I am further instructed that (in effect) the funds used by her to meet these cheques came from cash given to her by Sean Smith …, from another Post Office savings account which SS had opened in his own name at [Mr Shayler’s] request and into which he had deposited money given to him by [Mr Shayler].”

31. Mr Vickery then in the following paragraph, paragraph 10, wrote as follows “The reason frankly admitted to me by [Mr Shayler] for the involvement of all these various parties in the purchase of [the Property] and the discharge of its mortgage, when in his view [the Property] belonged to him at this time, was that he was involved in criminal activities (the supply of drugs) throughout this period and thus (i) needed to launder the proceeds of his crimes with which he paid for [the Property] (other than the £7,000 odd gift from his mother) through various family members and bank accounts to conceal the provenance of those proceeds from the authorities”.

32. On the basis of those instructions, Mr Vickery wrote at paragraph 35 “A further factor which arises in the present case is illegality: [the Property] was probably purchased and paid for mostly through the proceeds of crime and it was probably placed in the names of first [Mrs Crooks] and then [Ms Yeo] in order to conceal that it had been so paid for and to shield it from attempts by the authorities to seize it or treat it as belonging to [Mr Shayler]”. Mr Vickery considered what he described as the “overarching issue” of illegality at paragraphs 59 to 61.4.

33. Mr Shayler told Mr Vickery that in relation to this second confiscation order, the Property did not come up, the prosecutor did not mention it as an asset of his and Mr Shayler did not volunteer that he owned it or had an interest in it.

34. Mr Vickery drafted a letter before action and a letter making an offer without prejudice save as to costs to be sent to Ms Yeo. The letter before action was sent to Ms Yeo on 10 th July 2023. The final sentence of the second paragraph of the letter reads as follows “The Property was registered in the name of Mrs Crooks to try to conceal Mr Shayler’s then criminal activities and the proceeds of it from the authorities and because he had no formal employment record to support a mortgage application”.

35. Mr Vickery also drafted Mr Shayler’s Statement of Case in these proceedings, including the statement in paragraph 5 that “due to criminal activities in which he was then involved, he did not want to hold the Property in his own name”. Mr Shayler’s Evidence

36. Mr Shayler made a statement of case undated but received by the Tribunal on 24th October 2023 and a witness statement dated 21 st September 2023. He confirmed the truth of the contents of both those documents in his oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Shayler sent over 150 emails to the Tribunal in the period between the reference of the matter to the Tribunal and the start of the hearing. Many of those emails were long and included statements by Mr Shayler of what he said had happened in the past. Those emails were not witness statements and their contents are not evidence that can be taken into account by the Tribunal except to the extent that the contents are included in the statement of case or in Mr Shayler’s witness statement or in his oral evidence.

37. As to the funding of the purchase of the Property, Mr Shayler said that in 1995 he had saved £12,500 into his Britannia Building Society account. He paid a banker’s draft for this amount to Mrs Crooks and asked her to open a Post Office Savings Account in the names of herself and Danielle because he was worried that he might waste the money because he tended to gamble. Over the next year he saved a further £11,705. Mrs Crooks added £5,297.20 by remortgaging her home and £1,703 obtained as a personal loan. Mr Shayler said that this money was “legitimate up to this point”. In cross-examination, he denied tat the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking.

38. Mr Shayler said that he looked at properties with Mrs Crook. He decided to buy the Property because it was on a desirable estate with an excellent school nearby. Mr Shayler said that he asked Mrs Crooks to buy the Property in her name because he and Ms Yeo were both unemployed and he believed he would not be able to obtain a mortgage. Mrs Crooks obtained the mortgage and purchased the Property. Mr Shayler said that he continued to pay the mortgage until he paid off the outstanding monies in July 1997.

39. Mr Shayler said in cross-examination that he had not given Mr Vickery the instructions set out in paragraph 10 of the Advice and that he had corrected Mr Vickery. He did not produce any email or letter or other document in which he told Mr Vickery that the Property was not purchased and paid for through the proceeds of crime. Mr Shayler saw a draft of the letter before action and the without prejudice save as to costs offer letter. He produced an email he sent at 4.30pm on 4 th July 2023 to Mr Vickery commenting on the draft letters. Nowhere in that email did Mr Shayler state that the statement in the draft letter before action that the Property was registered in the name of Mrs Crooks to conceal his criminal activities and to conceal the proceeds of the Property from the authorities was incorrect. On 7 th October 2023 Mr Shayler, having seen a draft statement of case prepared by Mr Vickery on which he had been asked to comment, emailed Mr Vickery stating. “Hi Neil, I feel it is important that I clarify a number of points in relation to [Ms Yeo’s] letters to HMLR. It was not proved or even alleged by the F.I.U. (Financial Investigations Unit) that the property, 25 Naseby Close was purchased from the proceeds of crime, it was classified as belonging to me so it became an asset which could be offset against my fine”. On 9th October 2023 Mr Shayler emailed Mr Vickery saying that the Property was “never ever mentioned in the confiscation order”.

40. Mr Shayler said that after he had paid off the mortgage, he asked Mrs Crooks to put the house into the names of his three children (including Jack who was not born until 1 st December 1997) because he was worried his mother might die in the near future and he did not want other family members, particularly his sister Jeanette, to have an interest in the Property. Solicitors, Toller Hales and Calcutt told his mother that the Property could not be transferred into the names of the children because they were minors. Mr Shayler said that he then decided to transfer it into Ms Yeo’s name but with a restriction preventing her from taking “any actions or decisions on the” Property without the permission of Mrs Crooks, “though this was permission from [Mr Shayler] being the true owner”.

41. As to the first confiscation order, Mr Shayler said “at no time has it been proven or said” that the Property had been purchased from “criminal monies” but only that it was an asset from which the confiscation order could be paid. When Mr Shayler was taken in cross-examination to the Prosecutor’s Statement, he said that this was written before he pleaded guilty to the offence and that the figures subsequently changed. As to the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement, he denied in cross-examination that it was sent to the prosecution on his authority and he further denied that he had confirmed its contents to the Crown Court.

42. Mr Shayler said that he decided that the Property should be used as a tool to pay “the fine”, by which he meant the amount ordered to be paid by the confiscation order. He said that he asked Ms Yeo to apply for a mortgage for £35,000. He denied in cross-examination that he told Ms Yeo the Property was at risk unless she remortgaged and paid the compensation order. Mr Shayler agreed in cross-examination that £7,000 from Ms Yeo’s mother and £4,000 from Ms Yeo’s uncle were paid towards the confiscation order but he said that these monies belonged to him.

43. Mr Shayler said that on release from prison he “repaid” Ms Yeo all that she had had to pay under the mortgage while he was incarcerated. This amounted to approximately £3,500. Mr Shayler said that on his release he took on all financial responsibilities including paying for everything including the mortgage loan, household bills, utility bills, family vehicles, family holidays and works on the Property.

44. Mr Shayler said that after he was convicted of assaulting Ms Yeo and left the Property in November 2025, he continued to pay for everything, including cash payments of at least £800 per month. He paid the mortgage loan from 2000 to 2009 indirectly by giving Ms Yeo money to cover the repayments. He said that he only stopped supporting Ms Yeo financially in November 2009.

45. Cross-examined as to the circumstances of the compensation order made against him following his conviction in 2008, Mr Shayler said that he did not need to disclose to the authorities his beneficial interest in the Property because of what he called “the 6-year rule”. He said that as what had happened with the Property was more than 6 years before, he did not have to disclose it. Mrs Crooks’s statement

46. Mr Shayler produced a witness statement said to have been made by Mrs Crooks on 1 st January 2020. Mrs Crooks died on 22 nd January 2023. The cause of her death is given on her death certificate as “advanced dementia”. The signatures of Phyllis Smith and Terence Patton appear on the statement as witnesses to Mrs Crooks’s signature.

47. Mr Patton died before the hearing. Mr Shayler produced a witness statement signed by Mr Patton before Debra Thomas, a solicitor at Peter Lynn and Partners dated 26 th January 2024. Mr Patton said that Mrs Crooks signed her statement in front of him on 1 st January 2020 and fully understood its contents. Mr Patton went on to say that Mrs Crooks told him “the house was purchased in her name by money provided by [Mr Shayler] and she had put the property in [Ms Yeo’s] name at [Mr Shayler’s] request so the house really belongs to [Mr Shayler] and/or his children”.

48. Mrs Smith made a witness statement saying she witnessed Mrs Crooks sign a statement “supporting” Mr Shayler on 1 st January 2020 but she was not called to give evidence. The Tribunal gave permission for Mrs Smith to give evidence by video link because she could not come to London from her home in Wales but required that she be provided with a copy of the hearing bundle for her to use when giving her evidence and being cross-examined. However, Mr Shayler did not call Mrs Smith, giving as a reason that Mrs Smith would not have been able to use the lengthy hearing bundle.

49. The account given in the statement of Mrs Crooks produced by Mr Shayler, as to the source of the monies in the savings account in Mrs Crooks’s name was that £12,500 came from Mr Shayler’s account, £7,000 came from two loans Mrs Crooks took out from NatWest and that the remaining monies adding up to the total of £32,500 were added by Mr Shayler from savings. The statement says Mr Shayler paid the mortgage money to Mrs Crooks monthly.

50. As to the money to pay off the mortgage, the statement says that Mrs Crooks sold her wedding and engagement rings “given to [her] by her mother-in-law”.

51. The statement says that Mr Shayler asked Mrs Crooks to put the house into the names of his children because he was worried about future potential problems if Mrs Crooks died. The statements says that Mrs Crooks consulted with her solicitors, Toller, Hales and Colcutt who informed her that the property could not be transferred to the children because they were minors. The statement goes on to say that Mr Shayler then asked Mrs Crooks to put the property into Ms Yeo’s name. It says that Mrs Crooks voiced concerns about this because Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo had an “unsteady” relationship at the time but that Ms Yeo assured Mrs Crooks in a number of conversations “that the house would be safe in her name and she knew who the true owner was”.

52. In cross-examination, Mr Shayler said he had spoken to his mother by telephone about her giving a witness statement and had taken a note of what she wanted to say. He had rephrased it for her and typed it up. She had signed it in January 2020 and not in July 2023 as Ms Yeo alleged. He denied that Mrs Crooks had dementia. Mr Sean Smith

53. Mr Sean Smith was called by Mr Shayler to give evidence. He is married to Mr Shayler’s elder sister, Jeanette. Mr Smith said that he had looked after “legitimate monies” for Mr Shayler since the 1990s unto 2018/2019. He had assisted Mr Shayler in placing bets at many betting shops and taking him to race meetings where Mr Shayler would place “huge amounts of money” on horses and other sporting events. He was a “trusted person” who Mr Shayler could rely upon to assist with his gambling activities. He gave evidence that at Mr Shayler’s request in 1995 he opened a National Savings account. He said that Mr Shayler explained to him that he wanted to save enough money to obtain a mortgage to buy a property and due to his weakness of gambling he didn’t want to have direct/daily access to these monies to prevent him squandering his savings. Mr Smith said that over the next two years the balance in the account drew to approximately £14,000 plus interest. Mr Smith did not say in his witness statement how or when the money was paid into the account or what the source of the money was. Mr Smith said that at the beginning of 2007 at Mr Shayler’s request he withdrew £10,000 and took the monies to Mrs Maureen Yeo. In July 1997 Mr Shayler asked him to close the account and he withdrew the final balance of £4,000 plus interest and took those monies to Mrs Maureen Yeo. Mr Smith did not say how much was the interest. Mr Smith said that Mr Shayler told him “the £14,000” given to Mrs Maureen Yeo was to pay off the mortgage on the Property and that each time Mr Smith took the money to Mrs Maureen Yeo, she said she would pay the monies off the mortgage immediately.

54. In cross-examination, Mr Smith denied that he knew at the time that in 1996 to 2000 Mr Shayler was involved in criminal activities. Asked if he had any suspicion, he said that what Mr Shayler did in his spare time was none of his business. In re-examination, he said that he would have expected the monies to come from gambling activities. When asked in cross-examination if he accepted that Mr Shayler was convicted of a criminal offence in 1999 Mr Smith said he did not know. When asked if he accepted that in 2008 Mr Shayler was convicted of conspiracy to steal and sentenced to imprisonment, Mr Smith again said that he did not know. He also said that he was not aware of the confiscation order made in 2000 and that he did not accept another confiscation order was made against Mr Shayler. Mr Smith said that he did not know Mr Shayler was imprisoned in 1998 until 2002 and that he served a further term of imprisonment.

55. Having seen Mr Smith give evidence and refreshing my memory from my notes, I am satisfied that Mr Smith intended to say in cross-examination that he did not know that Mr Shayler had been convicted of criminal offences and had served two sentences of imprisonment. Mr Smith was not saying that he knew of the convictions and that Mr Shayler had been imprisoned but that he could not remember the dates. I note that to retain or control the proceeds of drug trafficking of another person on behalf of that person was an offence under s. 50 of the 1994 Act if the person with control knows or suspects the other person carries on drug trafficking. This may provide an explanation for why Mr Smith wished to distance himself from knowledge or suspicion of Mr Shayler’s criminal activities.

56. In cross-examination, Mr Shayler said that he and Mr Smith had common interests in business. He said they had had over £500,000 worth of dealings together. Lauren Shayler

57. The parties’ daughter, Lauren made a witness statement in which she said that her parents split up on 2005, that since 2006 her mother had refurbished the Property at her own expense and that save for the period 2012 to 2014, she had lived at the Property since 1996. Lauren was called to give oral evidence at the insistence of Mr Shayler. Lauren confirmed the contents of her witness statement and was cross-examined by her father. In cross-examination Lauren said that the parties split up in 2005. Though she accepted that the parties and their children went on holiday in 2007, she said that they had never been a proper family since 2005. Statement of Jeanette Mary Smith

58. Mr Shayler produced an undated witness statement said by him to have been made and signed by his sister, Jeanette Mary Smith. The relevant part of the statement reads “I know that my brother asked my mother to open a savings account in or around 1995 along with my then partner, Sean Richard Smith who also opened one so that monies could be saved by my brother to buy a property in the future. My mother purchased the property in her name on behalf of my brother who had chosen this property himself. A couple of years later my brother asked my mother to put the house into his children’s names but this wasn’t possible due to their ages, so he asked her to put it into Maria’s name who was the children’s mother which my mother did as James requested because it was his property”.

59. Ms Yeo said in her witness statement that Jeanette Smith told her more than once that she did not write or sign this statement. Ms Yeo produced a copy of a Whatsapp message exchange said to be between Mr Yeo and Jeanette Smith. Ms Yeo sent a photograph of the statement to Jeanette Smith and said, “I got your statement through today which james has also sent to the courts”. Jeanette Smith replied “I havent’ done a statement x That’s what I refused to sign x You can let your solicitor know that I didn’t write that xx”.

60. Mr Shayler did not call Ms Smith to give evidence. In cross-examination, Mr Shayler said that Ms Smith had refused to sign an earlier statement but that she had signed the statement he had put in evidence. Statement of Mr Nicholas Hartnell

61. Mr Shayler produced a statement of a Mr Nicholas Hartnell. He did not call Mr Hartnell to give evidence. In the statement, Mr Hartnell said that he had been a director along with Mr Shayler, Scott Pallett and Thomas Rock of a company called 1 st Rate Digital Ltd. He went on to say that while Mr Shayler was in prison from April 2008 to April 2010, he and his fellow directors would pay any money or wages due to Mr Shayler to Ms Yeo by taking cash to her at the Property. Mr Hartnell did not explain in the statement why Mr Shayler was due money or wages from the company while he was in prison.

62. Ms Yeo said that she only ever received one payment from Mr Hartnell. Mr Shayler said in cross-examination that Ms Yeo was paid every month and that she had received “thousands”. He did not deny that the Company only filed once set of accounts and that these showed it has assets of £4,000 and liabilities of £16,000. When he was asked to agree that the company was never a going concern, Mr Shayler replied, “I don’t know”. Ms Yeo’s Evidence

63. Ms Yeo gave evidence in chief by confirming the truth of the contents of her letters of objection sent to HM Land Registry dated 25 th and 27 th July 2023, her statement of case, her witness statement dated 28 th November 2023 and her very short undated witness statement at page 509 of the hearing bundle.

64. Ms Yeo said that Mr Shayler was always unemployed and claimed benefits. He had no wages from which he could have saved the £12,500 paid into the Woolwich bank account. In her oral evidence in chief Ms Yeo said that she did not dispute that Mr Shayler provided the £47,500 for the purchase of the Property but she did not accept it was money from a legitimate source. She admitted in her statement of case that the property was acquired as a family home for the parties and their children.

65. Ms Yeo said that the intention of the “transferor and transferee” on the transfer from Mrs Crooks to Ms Yeo was to “protect the Property as home for the Respondent and the children which might otherwise be at risk from the Applicant’s criminal activities”.

66. As to what happened after the confiscation order was made, Ms Yeo said in her witness statement that she decided she would mortgage the Property to retain a home for herself and her children as Mr Shayler had told her that the house would be confiscated unless the “fine” (by which, she meant the amount of the confiscation order) was paid. According to Ms Yeo, after Mr Shayler lost an appeal against the confiscation order, he telephoned her from prison to say that he had lost the appeal and “the fine and sentence still stand”. Mr Shayler went on to say that the “fine” needed to be paid otherwise he would get an additional 18 months in prison and “the fine doesn’t go away either so they can take the house”. When Ms Yeo said, “We would have to sell it”, Mr Shayler said, “You could re-mortgage as the children need to stay in their home as they are settled there, its close to their school and friends and it will still be yours, so it makes sense to try”. Ms Yeo said that she understood that by raising the money to pay the confiscation order she was buying the Property back from the courts and releasing it from the confiscation order which would then ultimately be “squashed”. So long as the mortgage payments were made from her own legitimate money, the house would always be hers. Ms Yeo said that what she understood Mr Shayler to be saying was “Maria, you sort it and you get to keep the house”.

67. Ms Yeo said that she then updated her cv, looked for a job and applied for a mortgage. She was not able to borrow the full £48,325.11 because of the loan to value ratio, the high interest rate and the amount of her part-time income but she obtained a mortgage loan of £35,000. In her Statement of Case Ms Yeo said that she also procured an additional sum of £13,325.11 from “various third parties (including members of her family)” so as to enable payment of the confiscation order. She said that the full amount of £48,325.11 was paid “in April 2000” “in order to discharge the risk to the Property”. In her witness statement, Ms Yeo said that the confiscation order was paid off in varying instalments over the period between 25 th July 2000 and 17 th January 2001. The instalments were paid as follows: £25,000 on 25 th July 2000 by Ms Yeo £1,200 on 22 nd September 2000 by Mrs Crooks £4,000 on 16 th October 2000 by Bernard Dudley, Ms Yeo’s uncle £10,00 on 28 th December 2000 by Ms Yeo £500 on an unknown date in December 2000 by Ms Crooks £500 on 17 th January 2001 by Stephen Crooks, Mr Shayler’s step-father £7,000 on 17 th January 2001 by Ms Yeo’s mother, Maureen Yeo and £136.32 on 17 th January 2001 by Ms Yeo

68. Ms Yeo did not give any explanation as to why having borrowed £35,000 on mortgage at the end of May 2000, she did not pay the full amount of £35,000 towards the confiscation order in June 2000 but waited until July to pay £25,000 and December 2020 to pay £10,000.

69. As to the reason why Mrs Crooks made payments towards the confiscation order, Ms Yeo said that she was very close to Mrs Crooks and Mrs Crooks told her she would help with the confiscation order so as to retain the Property for Ms Yeo and the children

70. Ms Yeo said that she paid the mortgage instalments for the Property from 2000 until 2022 when it was finally redeemed. Mr Shayler did not reimburse her £3,500 for mortgage payments on his release from prison and did not make monthly cash payments to her of £800 or any other regular sums. In cross-examination, Ms Yeo said that she paid the mortgage instalments so that there was not a risk of another confiscation order being made in respect of the Property.

71. Ms Yeo accepted that Mr Shayler paid the BT telephone bill from May 2002 to February 2006, paid Powergen from February 2005 to November 2005 and paid Sky Digital from December 2003 to April 2006.

72. Mr Shayler cross-examined Ms Yeo at length as to the payments into her bank account after Mr Shayler’s release from prison on 2 nd May 2002. She said she was paid in cash for a tele-marketing job from 1999 to mid-2010, earning around £200 per week. She had two tele-marketing jobs. These could involve working in the evening. Mr Shayler did not like her working in the evenings, so he helped her to get a job at Bella Casa. Ms Yeo said Bella Casa paid her wages through the bank. Ms Yeo denied that with the exception of a savings account, she had any bank account other than the account of which she had disclosed statements. She accepted that cheques paid into her bank account on 8 th May 2002 (for £50) and 13 th June 2002 (for £102.48) may have come from Mr Shayler . She denied that Mr Shayler gave her cheques and that she paid these into another bank account. She said that any monies Mr Shayler gave her were for their children and were not paid into a bank account. She said that from May 2002 Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo while living together, both paid for groceries and petrol. She accepted that Mr Yeo gave her gifts of a car and jewellery and paid for a holiday in Mexico but insisted that Mr Shayler did not give her £800 per month. She denied the assertion made by Mr Shayler in cross-examination that every month he gave his daughter an envelope of cash to give to Ms Yeo. Ms Yeo accepted that Mr Shayler gave her a cheque for £4,350 on 18 th October 2005 and said it was given to her to “support the family”. She denied that she was given a cheque for £3,200 in December 2005. She said that she did not receive a penny from Mr Shayler from the time he moved out in November 2005 until December 2006. She said Mr Shayler told her at the time that if he did not give her any money, she would have to take him back.

73. Mr Shayler asserted in cross-examination of Ms Yeo that her mother had “carrier bags” of his money “under the stairs” in her house. Ms Yeo did not accept this. Mr Shayler did not state this in his Statement of Case or in his witness statement and or in his oral evidence. There is therefore no evidence to support the assertion made by Mr Shayler when he was cross-examining Ms Yeo. Works to the Property

74. Mr Shayler produced an email from Martin Scarborough of Waterwise Plumbing Ltd in which Mr Scarborough said he carried out works at the Property in 2003 comprising the replacement of a bathroom suite at a labour only cost of £1940 and fitting a new kitchen at a labour only cost of £3260. Ms Yeo agreed that Mr Scarborough refurbished the kitchen and bathroom but did not accept that the prices he stated were correct. Ms Yeo did not say that she paid for these works. She said in her statement of case that Mr Shayler “may” have paid towards the kitchen works and admitted that he paid for the bathroom works.

75. Mr Shayler produced an email dated 18 th May 2021 from Mick Percival in which he said that though he did not have records of invoices for 2002 and 2003, he could “remember exactly” works he completed at Mr Shayler’s instructions. He then listed three set of works, (1) the supply and fitting of a conservatory including the construction of the base, electrics and plastering (2) the block paving of two areas and a pathway (3) the block-paving of the driveway. He said that payment was received from Mr Shayler for all three and gave the respective costs as £9,000, £3,000 and £3,000 respectively. Mr Shayler did not produce a witness statement made by Mick Percival and Mick Percival was not called to give evidence.

76. Ms Yeo said that the conservatory was supplied and fitted by Pete Percival and not Mick Percival and that the cost was about £6,000 and not £9,000. She recalled the cost because her mother had a similar conservatory installed by the same supplier at about the same time. Ms Yeo did not accept that Mr Shayler had paid for the conservatory works but she did not say that she had done so.

77. Ms Yeo said that the paving works were not done by Mick Percival but were done by Neil Irvine and that the total cost was in the region of £2,000. She did not accept that Mr Shayler paid for the works but she did not say that she had paid for them.

78. Mr Shayler produced an invoice from Martin James Percival for works completed in March 2003 at a cost of £2000 and comprising replacement of fascias and soffits and replacement of gutters and downpipes. The words “Received in full” appear on the invoice but the position of the words suggests that they formed part of the whole document when it was created. “Martin James Percival” is written in manuscript towards the bottom of the documents. Mr Shayler did not produce a witness statement made by Martin Percival and Martin Percival was not called to give evidence.

79. Ms Yeo said that the fascias and guttering works were done not by Martin Percival but by Plastic Wizard in around 2003 and that she replaced the fascias and gutters in 2017. Ms Yeo did not accept that Mr Shayler paid for the works in 2003 but she did not say that she did.

80. Mr Shayler produced a letter from David Payne trading as Tidy Gardens, dated 19 th December 2022 in which Mr Payne said he carried out gardening/landscape duties at the Property from 2002 to 2010 every 2 to 3 weeks. Mr Shayler did not produce a witness statement made by Mr Payne and Mr Payne was not called to give evidence.

81. Ms Yeo said that the work Mr Payne did was limited to cutting the grass over a period of about 2 years.

82. Mr Shayler produced several documents which he said showed him to be claiming to be the owner of the Property. These are (1) an MBNA credit card application dated 6 th July 2004 in which Mr Shayler gave his address as the Property; (2) a NatWest savings account opening form dated 7th September 2006 on which Mr Shayler gave his address as the Property; (3) a NatWest mortgage offer dated 23rd August 2006 addressed to Mr Shayler at the Property and being an offer of a mortgage loan to buy 6 Bacon Road.

83. Mr Shayler produced notes made by his probation officer. A note of an appointment on 13 th August 2006 records Mr Shayler saying that he had to be out of his house by the end of the month and might be moving back with Ms Yeo until they moved to a new house in December. The note reads “They were going to keep Ms Yeo’s house and he might give it to his daughter”. A note of a telephone meeting on 16 th November 2009 records Mr Shayler as saying that during a telephone conversation with Lauren, Ms Yeo had taken the telephone to tell him to stop asking about selling the Property. Basis of Claim by Mr Shayler

84. Mr Shayler’s case as pleaded in his Statement of Case is that by reason of the express or inferred common intention of himself and Mrs Crooks the Property was owned beneficially by Mr Shayler or alternatively, since Mr Shayler provided the entire purchase price, Mrs Crooks held it on resulting trust for him. The transfer to Ms Yeo was not a gift to her and following the transfer, Mr Shayler remained the sole beneficial owner. Alternatively, it was the common intention of Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo that on the transfer to Ms Yeo, Mr Shayler should remain the sole beneficial owner. Ms Yeo’s Case

85. Ms Yeo pleaded in her Statement of Case that her primary position was that Mr Shayler never had any interest in the Property. In her skeleton argument, her case was as follows (1) Mr Shayler disposed of any beneficial interest he had by the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement (2) Mr Shayler’s case should fail for illegality (3) Mr Shayler’s case based on a constructive trust should fail because (a) his statement in the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement that the Property “never has been nor will be a realisable asset of Mr Shayler” indicates that it was not the common intention of himself and Mrs Crooks or of himself and Ms Yeo that he should have an interest in the Property; and (b) even if there had been a common intention, there was no detrimental reliance by Mr Shayler on that common intention because the monies used to buy the Property were the proceeds of crime and investing the proceeds of crime in a Property is not detrimental reliance. (4) Mr Shayler did not make contributions towards the Property after 1999 such as to cause a constructive trust to arise. (5) If Mr Shayler had a constructive trust at the time of the confiscation order in 2000, that interest was extinguished by Ms Yeo’s payment of the confiscation order.

86. There are two important matters of fact for me to decide before I consider the application of the law of constructive or resulting trusts and the defence of illegality. The first is who paid for the Property and the second is how the person who paid for the Property gained the monies used to pay for it. Payment for the Property

87. Though Ms Yeo did not admit in her Statement of Case that Mr Shayler provided the funds for the Property to be purchased in Mrs Crooks’s name, she did not put forward a positive case that someone else provided them. Ms Yeo had herself told HM Land Registry that Mr Shayler had purchased the Property in Mrs Crooks’s name. That implies that Ms Yeo thought Mr Shayler provided the funds for the purchase. Ms Yeo in her oral evidence said that she did not dispute Mr Shayler provided the purchase monies.

88. Mr Shayler has himself made inconsistent statements about who provided the funds. In emails to Ms Yeo and to the Legal Aid authorities he said that the source of the monies was correctly stated in the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement. Those emails are as follows: (1) an email to Ms Yeo sent on 8 th May 2024 in which Mr Shayler stated that he was in possession of all the legal documents relating to the “1999” confiscation order including the defence statements made by Mr Macdona and that the “defence statement” “explains in great detail where the monies came from”. The reference to the “1999” confiscation order must be to the order made on 4 th January 2000. As the “Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement” is the only “defence statement” disclosed by Mr Shayler, I assume Mr Shayler was referring to this statement. (2) an email from Mr Shayler to the Exceptional and Complex Cases Team of the Legal Aid authorities on 17 th September 2024 in which Mr Shayler stated that the statement prepared by Mr Macdona “clearly details where the money for the purchase of the Property originated”. Thus, Mr Shayler was saying in these emails that Mrs Crooks provided the money for the purchase and discharge of the mortgage. This is inconsistent with his case that he purchased the Property in Mrs Crooks’s name and is inconsistent with his instructions to Mr Vickery, Mr Shayler said that the apart from £7,000 given to him by Mrs Crooks, he paid for the Property with the proceeds of crime.

89. There is no real evidence that Mrs Crooks provided the purchase monies (save for £7,000.20 Mr Shayler says was provided by Mrs Crooks but as a gift to him) or the funds to pay off the mortgage. I find that the deposit of £24,205 and the £14,000 used to discharge the mortgage were monies provided by Mr Shayler.

90. I should then consider how Mr Shayler acquired the funds used to buy the Property. Three means by which he may have acquired the funds have been raised in the proceedings. These are. (1) through earnings from legitimate employment such as trading in clothing and perfumery and roofing work; (2) through winnings from gambling; or (3) through his own criminal activities.

91. Mr Shayler’s evidence is that he asked Mrs Crooks to buy the house in her name because he was unemployed at the time. Ms Yeo’s evidence is that Mr Shayler was unemployed. The Prosecutor’s Statement contains some evidence (albeit second-hand) that Mr Shayler paid no income tax from 1989 to the date of the statement and claimed unemployment benefit. Mr Shayler did not in the proceedings before me produce any evidence of his having earned money through lawful trading or roofing work. It was not his case in these proceedings that he had done so. I therefore can discount the first of the possible three sources.

92. Mr Shayler’s case as appearing from his witness statement is that he saved money in the names of Mrs Crooks and Lauren so that he could not readily get at the money to use for gambling. He did not say in terms in his statement of case or his witness statement that the money in the savings account was the proceeds of gambling. The only evidence that the monies used to purchase the Property and pay off the mortgage is the evidence of Mr Sean Smith that Mr Shayler bet “huge amounts of money” and his evidence in re-examination that he expected the monies to come from gambling activities.

93. I can place little weight on Mr Shayler’s evidence when it is not supported by documents or credible testimony from other witnesses. This is not only because Mr Shayler has been convicted of serious criminal offences but also because he caused untrue statements to be made to the Crown Court on his behalf, namely that the monies were Mrs Crooks’s. He now considers it to be in his interests to put forward a different explanation. Mr Shayler in the hearing appeared to accept that he had told lies in the past. When cross-examining Ms Yeo, Mr Shayler said that Ms Yeo was a good liar because she had “learnt from the best”. By “the best”, he meant himself.

94. I find Mr Sean Smith to be an unsatisfactory witness whose evidence I should regard with caution. His evidence that he did not know Mr Shayler was convicted of drug trafficking and of the offence of conspiracy to steal and was imprisoned for those offences is incredible. He is Mr Shayler’s brother-in-law and according to Mr Shayler had extensive dealings with Mr Shayler. He knew of the convictions and imprisonments but chose to deny this in his evidence until led by Mr Shayler’s re-examination to accept he knew but just did not know the dates. As Mr Smith’s evidence on this point was wrong, I do not consider I can safely rely on his evidence that the monies given to him by Mr Shayler to look after were the proceeds of gambling.

95. I consider it to be significant that Mr Shayler did not say prior to these proceedings or in his statement of case that the funds used to buy the Property were won by him through gambling, even though it would have served him to say so. Had gambling been the source of the monies used to buy the property then Mr Shayler would have told his solicitor, Mr Macdona and Mr Macdona would have put his explanation forward in the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement. Further, had gambling been the source of the monies then Mr Shayler would have told Mr Vickery this when giving his instructions prior to Mr Vickery preparing his advice. Had Mr Shayler so instructed Mr Vickery then Mr Vickery would have set this out in his advice.

96. I find that the source of the monies used to buy the Property and pay off the mortgage was not gambling. Were then the funds used to buy the Property and pay off the mortgage the proceeds of crime?

97. Important documentary evidence relevant to determining whether or not the funds provided by Mr Shayler to purchase the Property and pay off the mortgage were legitimate is the Prosecutor’s Statement and the Reply thereto in the 1999/2000 confiscation proceedings and the 4 th January 2000 confiscation order. In order to understand what weight can be given to what was said in the Prosecutor’s Statement and the Reply thereto and what conclusions can be drawn from the making of the confiscation order in 2000, I need to consider the relevant parts of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (“ the 1994 Act ”).

98. Section 2 of the 1994 Act provides “(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, where a defendant appears before the Crown Court to be sentenced in respect of one or more drug trafficking offences (and has not previously been sentenced or otherwise dealt with in respect of his conviction for the offence or, as the case may be, any of the offences concerned), then— (a) if the prosecutor asks the court to proceed under this section, or (b) if the court considers that, even though the prosecutor has not asked it to do so, it is appropriate for it to proceed under this section, it shall act as follows. (2) The court shall first determine whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking. (3) For the purposes of this Act , a person has benefited from drug trafficking if he has at any time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act ) received any payment or other reward in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another person. (4) If the court determines that the defendant has so benefited the court shall, before sentencing or otherwise dealing with him in respect of the offence or, as the case may be, any of the offences concerned, determine in accordance with section 5 of this Act the amount to be recovered in his case by virtue of this section. (5) The court shall then, in respect of the offence or offences concerned— (a) order the defendant to pay that amount;”

99. Section 5 of the 1994 Act provides “1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the amount to be recovered in the defendant’s case under the confiscation order shall be the amount the Crown Court assesses to be the value of the defendant’s proceeds of drug trafficking. (2) If the court is satisfied as to any matter relevant for determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made (whether by reason of the acceptance of an allegation made in a statement given under section 11 of this Act or made in the giving of information under section 12 of this Act , or otherwise) the court may issue a certificate giving the court’s opinion as to the matters concerned, and shall do so if satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3) below. (3) If the court is satisfied that the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made is less than the amount the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking, the amount to be recovered in the defendant’s case under the confiscation order shall be— (a) the amount appearing to the court to be the amount that might be so realised; or (b) a nominal amount, where it appears to the court (on the information available to it at the time) that the amount that might be so realised is nil”.

100. Section 6 of the 1994 Act provides “(1) For the purposes of this Act the amount that might be realised at the time a confiscation order is made against the defendant is— (a) the total of the values at that time of all the realisable property held by the defendant, less (b) where there are obligations having priority at that time, the total amount payable in pursuance of such obligations, together with the total of the values at that time of all gifts caught by this Act . (2) In this Act “realisable property” means, subject to subsection (3) below— (a) any property held by the defendant; and (b) any property held by a person to whom the defendant has directly or indirectly made a gift caught by this Act . (3) …. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, an obligation has priority at any time if it is an obligation of the defendant— (a) to pay an amount due in respect of a fine, or other order of a court, imposed or made on conviction of an offence, where the fine was imposed or the order was made before the confiscation order; or (b) to pay any sum which would be included among the preferential debts (within the meaning given by section 386 of the Insolvency [ 1986 c. 45 .] Act 1986) in the defendant’s bankruptcy commencing on the date of the confiscation order or winding up under an order of the court made on that date” .

101. “Property” is defined by s. 62 as including all real and personal property and section 62(5) provides that for the purposes of the Act , property is held by any person if he holds and interest in it.

102. Section 9 (1) provides that where the Crown Court orders the defendant to pay any amount under section 2 of the Act , section 31(1) to (3c) and 32(1) and (2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (“ the 1973 Act ”) in relation to fines and the enforcement of Crown Court fines) shall have effect as if that amount were a fine imposed on him by the Crown Court.

103. Section 31(2) of the 1973 Act requires the Crown Court when imposing a fine to make an order fixing a term of imprisonment which the defendant is to serve if the fine is not paid.

104. Section 8 of the 1994 Act provides “(1) gift (including a gift made before the commencement of this Act ) is caught by this Act if— (a) it was made by the defendant at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him; or (b) it was made by the defendant at any time and was a gift of property— (i) received by the defendant in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another person; or (ii) which in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented in the defendant’s hands property received by him in that connection” .

105. Section 11(1) of the 1994 Act provides that where the prosecutor asks the court to proceed under section 2 , he shall give the court a statement of matters which he considers relevant in connection with determining whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking or assessing the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.

106. Section 11(5) of the 1994 Act provides that where any prosecutor’s statement has been given and served on the defendant, the court may require the defendant to (a) indicate to it the extent to which he accepts each allegation in the statement and (b) so far as he does not accept it, to give particulars of any matters on which he proposes to rely.

107. I t was the prosecution case as appearing from the Prosecutor’s statement that (a) all the deposits to the National Savings account in the names of Daniella Shayler and Ms Crook were the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s drug trafficking; (b) the payments to clear the mortgage were the proceeds of drug trafficking; and consequently (c) the property was purchased solely from the proceeds of drug trafficking. Mr Shayler’s statement in his evidence that at no time was it said the Property had been purchased from criminal monies is wrong. That is what the prosecution said. The Prosecutor’s Statement at paragraph 23 includes the following “It is my contention that this house was purchased solely from the proceeds of SHAYLER’s drug trafficking …”

108. The Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement, I find, was written on Mr Shayler’s instructions and sent by his solicitor to the Court, on Mr Shayler’s instructions. It is utterly improbable that a solicitor would have concocted the contents of the statement and sent it to the court without his client’s express instructions. It was thus Mr Shayler’s case in 1999 that the £32,509.60 used to purchase the Property was not his money but Mrs Crooks’s. It was also his case that he had no interest in the Property. As realizable property is defined by s.6(2) of the 1996 Act as meaning any property held by the defendant and by s.6(25) property is held by any person if he holds an interest in it, Mr Shayler had given instructions for the Crown Court to be told in 1999 that he had no interest in the Property. On his present case that was untrue.

109. There was no evidence as to what happened at the Crown Court on the day the confiscation order was made and there is no statement on the face of the certificate of what matters the Court considered relevant. However, I must assume that the Crown Court followed the law. The confiscation order certificate stated that the amount of the proceeds of crime was £65,000 and that the amount that might be realised at the date of the certificate was £48,325.11. The amount that might be realised would have been calculated in accordance with section 6 of the 1996 Act. It would therefore have been calculated by totalling the value of any property held by Mr Shayler and any property held by a person to whom Mr Shayler had made a gift caught by the Act and subtracting the total amount payable pursuant to any obligations having priority at the time of the order. There is no evidence that Mr Shayler had any obligations having priority falling within section 6(4) of the 1994 Act . The sum of £48,325.11 is the sum of the following (1) 485.96 cash held by Mr Shayler, (2) 339.15 in a Halifax account in the name of Ms Yeo (3) the £47,500 paid for the Property.

110. Mr Shayler himself said in an email he sent to the Crown Court on 22 nd October 2024 that the figure of £48,325.11 was made up as set out above. He said in effect the same in an email he sent to Ms Yeo on 23 rd October 2024, in which he stated “I have also attached the final confiscation order that simply details the purchase price of the Property, money in my possession and the Halifax monies attributed to me”.

111. Mr Shayler in his written closing submissions asserted that the amount of the realisable assets in the confiscation order was calculated in a different manner. He said it was the sum of £15,490 paid to Mrs Crooks’s credit cards, £17,600 credited to a NatWest account, £14,885 deposits to Ms Yeo’s Halifax account and £480 cash in Mr Shayler’s possession. I do not accept this submission. The figures Mr Shayler gave in his written closing submissions add up to £48,455. That is not the amount of the realisable assets certified by the Crown Court. Mr Shayler does not provide an explanation for the £129.89 difference between the certified figure of £48,325.11 and the total of the figures he puts forward in his submissions. I do not accept that the certified amount was calculated as Mr Shayler chose to submit in his closing submissions.

112. I find on the balance of probabilities that the monies used to purchase the property and the paying off the mortgage were (save for the £7,000 provided by Mrs Crooks) the proceeds of criminal activities by Mr Shayler. I so find for the following reasons: – (1) I do not accept Mr Shayler’s case that they were the proceeds of gambling. (2) Mr Shayler has not established that he had other legitimate sources of income. (3) Ms Yeo’s evidence is that Mr Shayler was on benefits. (4) DC Williams of the Financial Investigation Unit, National Crime Squad said in the Prosecutor’s Statement that the property was purchased from the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s drug trafficking. (5) Mr Vickery stated in his advice that Mr Shayler admitted to him he paid for the property with the proceeds of crime.

113. I do not accept Mr Shayler’s statement that he did not tell Mr Vickery that the monies used to buy the property (other than £7,000 from Ms Crook) were the proceeds of crime and that he corrected Mr Vickery. It is utterly improbable that Mr Vickery would have made such a serious and important statement and devoted a substantial part of his advice to discussing the legal consequences of the funds having been the proceeds of crime if Mr Vickery had not been told by Mr Shayler that they were the proceeds of crime. The Advice was produced on 30th May 2003. Had Mr Vickery been mistaken in thinking that Mr Shayler had told him the Property was purchased with the proceeds of crime, Mr Shayler could be expected to have told Mr Vickery this very quickly and in clear, strong terms. Mr Shayler did not produce any email or letter in which commented on the Advice and told Mr Vickery that his account of his instructions from Mr Shayler were incorrect.

114. Mr Shayler saw the letter before action, drafted by Mr Vickery before it was sent out and by email on 4th July 2003 he commented on the draft. In that email he did not correct the statement in the draft letter that the property was registered in Ms Crook’s name to try to conceal the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s criminal activities. If the Property was not paid for with the proceeds of criminal activities, there would have been no reason to conceal it from the authorities.

115. Mr Shayler did tell Mr Vickery in commenting on a draft Statement of Case, 1 October 2003, some 5 months after the Advice was written and 3 months after the letter before action was sent, that “it was not proved or alleged” that the Property was purchased from the proceeds of crime. However, this is different from saying that the Property was not purchased from the proceeds of crime. If it were the case that the Property was not purchased from the proceeds of crime, then Mr Shayler would have said this to Mr Vickery soon after receiving his advice and when commenting on the draft letter before action.

116. Ms Crook’s witness statement would not alter or influence my finding that the Property was purchased from the proceeds of crime. As the cause of Ms Crooks’s death, as appearing from her death certificate, was advanced dementia, I do not consider I should place any weight on a witness statement made, on Mr Shayler’s case, some three years before her death and on Ms Yeo’s case, a few months before.

117. As gambling was not the source of the purchase funds, Mr Shayler had no legitimate employment, and Mr Shayler does not say that the funds were provided by Mrs Crooks, the only remaining source of the purchase funds is Mr Shayler’s criminal activities. I find that Mr Shayler funded the purchase of the Property and the repayment of the mortgage from the proceeds of crime. Constructive or Resulting Trust on Purchase by Mrs Crooks

118. Where one person is registered as proprietor of a house, the law will assume that that person is the sole beneficial owner of the house. If a person other than the registered proprietor wishes to claim a beneficial interest in the house, then the burden is on him to establish that the registered proprietor is not the sole beneficial owner. Where the claim to a beneficial interest is by someone who is cohabiting or formerly cohabited with the registered proprietor in the house then the question whether the claimant has a beneficial interest will be answered by the application of the law of constructive trusts. The claimant will have to establish that the registered proprietor holds the house on a constructive trust for or partly for him. A constructive trust will arise if it was the common intention of the registered proprietor and the claimant that the claimant should have an interest in the house and the claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on that common intention such that it would be unconscionable for the registered proprietor to deny that the claimant had an interest – see Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 .

119. Where the constructive trust approach does not apply and a person buys a property using funds provided by another then it will be presumed unless the contrary is established that the person buying the property holds it on a resulting trust for the person who provided the funds.

120. Whether the constructive trust or resulting trust approaches are considered, t he confiscation order is here highly relevant. Had the Property been considered by the Crown Court either (1) to be held on trust for Mr Shayler (under either a constructive or a resulting trust) or (2) to have been a gift by Mr Shayler to Mrs Crooks or to Ms Yeo then the Property would have been a realizable asset and the amount that might be realised would have been certified as a sum including the value of the Property. The information before the Crown Court was that the Property was valued at £55,000. Had Mr Shayler been the beneficial owner of the Property then the amount that might be realised would have been certified as £55,825.11 and not £48,325.11.

121. The Crown Court could not have decided the amount of the realisable assets unless either the prosecution and the defence agreed the amount or the Crown Court itself made appropriate in findings. Either Mr Shayler accepted the realisable figure was as certified, in which case he must be taken to have accepted the manner in which that figure was calculated and hence that the Property was not held on trust for him or the Crown Court itself found that the money used for the purchase of the Property and the discharge of the mortgage amounted to a gift by Mr Shayler and thus that he did not have a beneficial interest in the Property. It is quite probable that the former is the case since Mr Shayler asserted in his Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement that the Property was not and never had been a realisable asset. By whichever route the Crown Court was able to certify the realisable assets as it did, it made an order which is inconsistent with the Property being held on trust for Mr Shayler. The Tribunal should not make a finding which is inconsistent with the finding of the Crown Court. I find that Mrs Crooks did not hold the Property on trust for Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo did not take on trust for Mr Shayler. Transfer of Beneficial Interest

122. In case I am wrong in finding that Mr Shayler did not have a beneficial interest in the Property prior to its transfer to Ms Yeo, I must consider the submission made by counsel for Ms Yeo that Mr Shayler transferred his interest to Ms Yeo by making the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement and therein stating that he did not have and never had an interest in the Property. An assignment of a beneficial interest must be made in writing signed by the assignor or by his agent authorised so to do in writing – s. 53(1) (c) Law of Property Act 1925 . Counsel for Ms Yeo submitted that the Reply to the Prosecutor’s Statement included an assignment of the beneficial interest satisfying the provisions of section 53(1) (c). He submitted that the Reply was signed by Mr Macdona as agent for Mr Shayler and that I should assume Mr Macdona had been authorised in writing by Mr Shayler to sign the Reply. I do not accept this submission for three reasons. (1) Firstly, I do not find that the words of the Reply can be read as an assignment of an interest to Ms Yeo. Mr Shayler said in the Reply not only that he did not have an interest but that he never had an interest. Those are not words assigning an interest. He could not assign an interest he said he never had. The case of Hudson v. Hathway [2022] EWCA Civ 1648 is very different on the facts. In that case the words used by Mr Hudson were clearly words comprising an offer to Ms Hathway of his beneficial interest in the house, namely “Which leaves the house …You know what I want none of the proceeds of that either. Take it” and confirming the basis on which Ms Hathway accepted the offer, “Under this arrangement I have no interest whatsoever in the house”. (2) Secondly, the Reply was not signed, either by Mr Shayler or by Mr Macdona. I do no consider that by signing the covering letter under which the Reply was sent to the Crown Court that Mr Macdona was signing the Reply. (3) Thirdly, if Mr Macdona could be said to have signed the Reply, there is no evidence that he had the written authority of Mr Shayler to do so. I have found that Mr Macdona would not have sent the Reply to the Crown Court and the Crown Prosecution Service without Mr Shayler’s authority to do so but it does not follow that he would have had written authority to send the Reply, let alone written authority to sign the Reply on Mr Shayler’s behalf. Illegality

123. In case I am wrong in finding that the Property was not held on trust for Mr Shayler, I shall consider whether the Tribunal should refuse to uphold Mr Shayler’s claim to a beneficial interest on the grounds of illegality. I have found that the monies used to buy the Property and pay off the mortgage to Woolwich were the proceeds of crime. Counsel for Ms Yeo submits that the Property was purchased in the name of Mrs Crooks in order to launder the proceeds of Mr Shayler’s crimes and to conceal the provenance of those proceeds from the authorities. He submits that the Tribunal should refuse to assist Mr Shayler to assert a beneficial interest in the Property.

124. The applicable legal test for the defence of illegality is set out in the judgment of Lord Toulson in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 . At paragraph 107 Lord Toulson said: “In considering whether it would be disproportionate to refuse relief to which a claimant would otherwise be entitled as a matter of public policy, various factors may be relevant …Potentially relevant factors include the seriousness of the conduct, its centrality to the contract, whether it was intentional and whether there was a marked disparity in the parties’ respective culpability”.

125. Lord Toulson’s judgment included the following relevant passages:- at paragraph 108 “Punishment is not generally the function of the civil courts, which are concerned with determining private rights and obligations. The broad principle is not in doubt that the public interest requires that the civil courts should not undermine the effectiveness of the criminal law; but nor should they impose what would amount in substance to an additional penalty disproportionate to the nature and seriousness of any wrongdoing” at paragraph 109 “The courts must obviously abide by the terms of any statute, but I conclude that it is right for a court which is considering the application of the common law doctrine of illegality to have regard to the policy factors involved and to the nature and circumstances of the illegal conduct in determining whether the public interest in preserving the integrity of the justice system should result in denial of the relief claimed” at paragraph 110 “There may be circumstances in which a court will refuse to lend its assistance to an owner to enforce his title as, for example, where to do so would be to assist the claimant in a drug trafficking operation, but the outcome should not depend on a procedural question” and at paragraph 116 “I do not exclude the possibility that there may be particular reason for the court to refuse its assistance to the claimant … just as there may be a particular reason for the court to refuse to assist an owner to enforce his title to property, but such cases are likely to be rare. (At para 110 I gave the example of a drug trafficker).

126. At paragraph 120 Lord Toulson gave the following summary “The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate”.

127. Counsel for Ms Yeo referred me to the judgments in the cases of Kliers v. Schmerler [2018] EWHC 1350 (Ch) and Al-Dowaisan v. Al-Salam [2019] EWHC 301 (Ch) .

128. In Kliers v. Schmerler , the Claimant was party to an arrangement by which the house for which she paid the deposit with her husband and which was the home of the Claimant and her husband, was purchased in the name of her husband’s brother for the purposes of facilitating fraud. The fraud was obtaining mortgage funds on the basis of a false declaration that the house was being bought for the brother’s sole occupation and obtaining housing benefit to which the Claimant and her husband would not be entitled. The Court found that the Claimant had entered into the arrangement by reason of undue influence. The learned judge found that the public policy against fraud, though strong, did not militate against giving the Claimant the remedy of a declaration that she was beneficially entitled to a share in the house. The learned judges stated “To leave matters where they stand is, in fact, to continue the perpetration of the fraud…The reality is that the illegal activities which have taken place have to be undone and remedied and part of that is assisted, not damaged, by the grant of declaratory relief”. The latter sentence is explained by the fact that the Claimant had undertaken to the Court to give disclosure to the authorities and to take steps to ensure both the mortgagee and the housing benefit authorities were repaid out of the house.

129. In Al-Dowaisan v. Al-Salam a bank account was set up in the name of the Claimant as nominee for others, including the Defendant making a counterclaim. The learned judge, HH Judge Hodge KC, sitting as a High Court judge found that the bank account was set up for the purpose of concealing the beneficial entitlement of persons including the counterclaimant to the monies passing through the account. This was done for the purpose of tax evasion and the payment of tax due was evaded in this way. The counterclaimant claimed an order for payment to him of £400,000 in the account. The learned judge dismissed the counterclaim on the grounds of illegality for the following reasons:- (1) for the Court to deny the counterclaim and to allow the Claimant to treat the £400,000 as his own would serve to discourage third parties from taking steps to facilitate tax evasion in the future and would therefore assist in ensuring HM Revenue and Customs receives the tax which is due; (2) it would serve to discourage people from lying to the police; and (3) it was not a disproportionate response or undue interference in property rights to deny the Counterclaimant his right to recover the £400,000

130. I consider that public policy would require the Tribunal to deny Mr Shayler the right to assert a beneficial interest in the Property at the time it was registered in Ms Crooks’s name if, contrary to my findings, the Property would otherwise be held on trust for him. I so consider for the following reasons. Firstly, dealing in illegal drugs, especially class A drugs is a social evil. The consumption of drugs of the type trafficked by Mr Shayler damages the lives of those who become addicted or are otherwise damaged by consuming them, leads to anti-social and criminal behaviour as those addicted try to obtain money with which to purchase the drugs to feed their addiction and the effect is to undermine society. The purpose of the prohibition on the trafficking in class A drugs is to protect members of society from becoming addicted and from the evils that follow from people becoming addicted. Secondly, to deny Mr Shayler an interest in the Property would serve to deter others from lying to the police and the authorities as well as from engaging in drug trafficking in the belief that they can hide the proceeds. I have had regard to the fact that the criminal law provides a means for the proceeds of crime to be confiscated. However, in this case Mr Shayler did not tell the prosecuting authorities or the Crown Court in 2000 that he was the beneficial owner of the Property. Had he done so, the amount of the confiscation order would have been greater because it would have included the value of the Property and not only the amount paid to buy it. Thirdly, to deny Mr Shayler an interest would not be disproportionate. Extinguishment

131. Counsel for Ms Yeo submitted that if Mr Shayler had a beneficial interest in the Property, it was “extinguished” by Ms Yeo remortgaging the Property and using the loan monies and monies from third parties to pay off the confiscation order. By this I understand him to mean that I should find that it was the common intention of the parties that Ms Yeo should be the sole beneficial owner from 2000 on the basis of Ms Yeo’s evidence as to her reasons for mortgaging the Property and that as Ms Yeo relied on this common intention to her detriment in mortgaging the Property and paying the mortgage instalments, Mr Shayler cannot assert a claim to a beneficial interest in the Property. As I have found that Mr Shayler did not have a beneficial interest in the Property prior to the making of the confiscation order and I consider below the beneficial ownership of the Property in the years after the confiscation order was made, I shall not consider this point further here. Acquisition of an Interest under a Constructive Trust after January 2000

132. I shall next consider whether, although Mr Shayler had no beneficial interest in January 2000 (being the date when the confiscation order was made), he subsequently acquired an interest under a constructive trust.

133. At paragraph 69 in Stack v Dowden Lady Hale discussed the factors that may be relevant to divining the parties’ true intentions as to beneficial ownership. In addition to financial contributions, Her Ladyship said that in a case where the legal title is held jointly, the relevant factors include “any advice or discussions at the time of the transfer which cast light upon their intentions then; the reasons why the home was acquired in their joint names; the reasons why (if it be the case) the survivor was authorised to give a receipt for capital moneys; the purpose for which the home was acquired; the nature of the parties’ relationship; whether they had children for whom they both had responsibility to provide a home; how the purchase was financed, both initially and subsequently; how the parties arranged their finances, whether separately or together or a bit of both; how they discharged the outgoings on the property and their other household expenses…The parties’ individual characters and personalities may also be a factor in deciding where their true intentions lay. In the cohabitation context, mercenary considerations may be more to the fore than they would be in marriage, but it should not be assumed that they always take pride of place over natural love and affection” At paragraph 70, Her Ladyship said that this was not an exhaustive list.

134. This is not a joint names cases but a case in which I have found that Mr Shayler did not have a beneficial interest at the time of the purchase by Mrs Crooks or her subsequent transfer to Ms Yeo. Mr Shayler says that until 2009 he gave Ms Yeo at least £800 a month out of which Ms Yeo paid the mortgage taken out in 2000 to raise funds towards paying the confiscation order. Ms Yeo disputes that. She says that she paid the mortgage instalments in order to avoid the risk that Mr Shayler might be said to have an interest in the Property at a future date to be taken into account in a future confiscation order. According to Ms Yeo she paid the mortgage in order to save the Property from being lost in the future as she thought it nearly had been at the time of the January 2000 confiscation order proceedings.

135. I accept Ms Yeo’s evidence that she paid the mortgage instalments from her own money. Ms Yeo was employed, as Mr Shayler accepts, in telemarketing and then by Bella Casa so it is not the case that Ms Yeo did not have a source of her own funds from which to pay the mortgage instalments. Ms Yeo’s explanation as to why she paid the mortgage instalments from her own funds is a convincing one. It is entirely credible that in the lead up to the 2000 confiscation order, she feared that she might lose the home of herself and her children as the result of the application for a confiscation order. It was the prosecution case that the Property was purchased with the proceeds of crime and that it was a realizable asset. I accept Ms Yeo’s evidence that she thought by paying the mortgage instalments herself she was avoiding the risk of another confiscation order being made involving the Property.

136. As to Mr Shayler’s intention, his conduct in not disclosing an interest in the Property for the purposes of the 2008 confiscation order is some evidence that he did not intend that he should have an interest in the Property. If he had an interest, it should have been disclosed but it was not. The “six years’ rule” to which Mr Shayler referred in cross-examination is relevant only if the transfer to Ms Yeo had been a gift by Mr Shayler. If that had been the case then because the transfer was more than 6 years before the confiscation order, it would not have been a caught by the provisions of section 8(1) ((a) of the 2004 Act.

137. The fact that Mr Shayler gave the Property as his address on some forms is not significant in deciding whether or not he had a beneficial interest in the Property. As to Mr Shayler having written to Mrs Crooks from prison saying that he had a lovely family and “a lovely home”, I do not consider that indicates that Mr Shayler considered he owned the Property. He would have considered that he had a home because Ms Yeo was his partner, the mother of his children and the Property remained the family home.

138. Ms Yeo accepted in cross-examination that from May 2002 until November 2005 when the parties were living together, Mr Shayler shared the cost of household groceries. She also accepted that Mr Yeo shared the cost of petrol for her car, though she said this was because she needed to drive Mr Shayler around as he could not drive. She accepted that Mr Shayler bought her a 3-month-old Mercedes car and that he paid for family holidays, including a holiday to Mexico. She accepted that cheques paid into her bank account on 8 th May 2002 (for £50) and 13 th June 2002 (for £102.48) may have come from Mr Shayler. Further Ms Yeo accepted that a cheque for £4,350 paid into her bank account on 18 th October 2005 was from Mr Shayler. Ms Yeo also accepted that Mr Shayler gave her money for the maintenance of their children in December 2006. Ms Yeo did not accept that, with the exception of one sum paid to her by Mr Hartnell, Mr Shayler caused intermediaries to pay money to her while he was in prison from 2008 until, on Mr Shayler’s account, the parties separated in 2009. I find that Mr Shayler did make some contribution to household expenses.

139. As to payment for works to the Property, I find that Mr Shayler paid for some works in 2002/2003. These comprised the following: (1) the replacement of a bathroom suite at a cost of £1,940, the fitting of a new kitchen at a cost of £3,260, (2) the supply and fitting of a conservatory at a cost of about £6,000. As to the cost, I prefer the evidence of Ms Yeo to Mr Shayler. Ms Yeo was generally a more credible witness than Mr Shayler. As to the price of the conservatory, she had a particular reason for remembering the cost because of the supply and fitting of a similar conservatory for her mother. (3) the laying of paving at a total cost of £2,000. I prefer the evidence of Ms Yeo as the generally more credible witness; and (4) the replacement of fascias, soffits, gutters and downpipes at a cost of £2,000. The total cost of the works was something in the region of £15,000.

140. Whilst I find that Mr Shayler paid for works to the Property in 2002/2003 and made contributions towards household expenses, I do not consider that I should infer it was the common intention of Mr Shayler and Ms Yeo that Mr Shayler should have a beneficial interest in the Property. Ms Yeo wanted to ensure that the Property that was a home for herself and her children would not be lost if a future confiscation order was made against Mr Shayler. For this reason, it was not her intention that Mr Shayler should acquire any beneficial interest in the Property. Mr Shayler did not demonstrate in 2008 that he believed he had an interest in the Property as he could have done by disclosing an interest in the 2008 confiscation proceedings. Mr Shayler could have paid for works to the Property and to the maintenance of his family without intending that he should have a beneficial interest in the Property. Laches

141. Had I found Mr Shayler had a beneficial interest in the Property, I would not have found that he was debarred from enforcing his claim because of delay, under the equitable doctrine of laches. There was a substantial delay of about 13 years in Mr Shayler taking steps to enforce a claim. Mr Shayler first raised a claim to a beneficial interest in the Property in October 2010. He then did not pursue that claim until in 2023 he made the application that has been referred to the court. Mr Shayler said that he started collecting evidence to make his claim in 2019 but there is no evidence that after 2010 he told Ms Yeo of his intention to make a claim until Mr Vickery sent on his behalf the letter before action in July 2003. However, delay alone will not cause the court to refuse relief. The editors of Snell’s Equity (34 th ed.) state as follows at 5.011 “Something more than mere delay, more even that extremely lengthy delay, is required before B will be denied equitable rights under the doctrine of laches, as the question is whether the lapse of time has given rise to circumstances that now mean it would not be inequitable to deny relief to B. The principal example occurs where, perhaps as a result of having relied on a mistaken belief that B has no relevant right, A would now suffer an irreversible detriment, as a result of B’s delay, if B were permitted relief”. Counsel for Ms Yeo submitted that Ms Yeo suffered detriment in that even on Mr Shayler’s case, she paid all the mortgage instalments from 2009 to 2022. I do not consider that to be an irreversible detriment such that it would have caused the court to deny Mr Shayler relief had he otherwise established that he had a beneficial interest. The payments by Ms Yeo could have been taken into account on the assessment of the size of the parties’ respective beneficial interests and/ or in any order made under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 . Conclusion

142. Mr Shayler does not have a beneficial interest in the Property and so does not have grounds for the entry of a restriction on the title. Accordingly, I shall direct the Chief Land Registrar to cancel the application. Costs

143. The Tribunal has power to make an order for costs in a land registration case. Practice Direction 9 of the Property Chamber Land Registration Practice Directions provides that if the Tribunal makes an order for costs in a land registration case, it will usually order the losing party to pay the costs of the winning party but the Tribunal may make a different order. My preliminary view is that the Tribunal should order Mr Shayler to pay Ms Yeo’s costs to be assessed. Any party who wishes to submit that some different order should be made as to costs should serve written submissions on the Tribunal and on the other party by 5pm on 25 th October 20205. BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL Judge Michael Michell DATED THIS 14 th OCTOBER 2025