← All Authorities
United Kingdom presumedconfiscationnon est factum

Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service

[2011] EWHC 1170 (Admin)
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtHigh Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Year2011
StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

In deciding whether a property transfer to a defendant subject to a confiscation order should be set aside for presumed undue influence, the court asks whether the relationship was such that a presumption arises and whether the transaction calls for evidence of the transferor's full, free and informed will; it is not necessary that the alleged influencer acted wrongfully or cheated the victim.

Area of Law

General

Related Cases

TNLC & Anor v Gambling Commission & Ors [2026] EWHC 891 (TCC)
Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L. and others v Glencore Plc and others [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm)
Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Ors [2026] CAT 32

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Hackett v Crown Prosecution Service and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Hackett v Crown Prosecution Se...