Gohil & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court considered an application by Applicant seeking to vacate the hearing listed for the renewed application for leave to appeal a confiscation order made by Judge Tomlinson on 24 July 2023 (approximately £101 million). Grounds of appeal settled by Attorney Krolick were lodged on 21 August 2023. The Office issued a direction on 9 April 2024 noting withdrawal of original counsel and deficiencies in the lodged papers. A respondent's notice was filed on 3 June 2024 and a single judge refused leave on 14 November 2024. The Applicant renewed the application on 18 November 2024 as a litigant in person on those same grounds. The renewed hearing was relisted for 11 November 2025 (after an earlier vacated date) and to be heard together with a separate renewed application by Applicant 2 against a different confiscation order (approximately £28 million) because of related underlying conduct. Time allocated for both applications was 15 minutes, based on the assumption the matters would be dealt with on paper.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the hearing listed for the renewed application for leave to appeal should be vacated and relisted to permit newly instructed counsel to prepare and "perfect" grounds of appeal.
2. Whether the Applicant should be permitted to advance new or amended grounds (or materially expand upon previously lodged grounds) through the proposed adjournment/directions.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• Company A (solicitors) had been instructed and had instructed Attorney Eissa KC to advise and represent the Applicant in the renewed application, but Attorney Eissa was unavailable for the scheduled hearing.
• Fees and disbursements owed to previously instructed counsel and solicitors needed to be discharged and agreement to release funds from accounts frozen by the Prosecution was necessary; that agreement was reached on 19 September and took several weeks to implement.
• The underlying confiscation proceedings were highly complex, involving voluminous material (trial evidence purportedly exceeding c.65,000 pages) and extensive transcripts spanning 12 years; leading counsel required substantial time to review and properly advise, so justice required an adjournment to allow those preparations and to permit counsel to perfect grounds.
• Attorney Eissa advised the Court that the hearing should be treated as a directions hearing to set deadlines for counsel to confirm which grounds would be argued and to perfect grounds for the full court.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Office/registrar indicated the matter should remain listed because the Applicant had had substantial time (renewal filed 18 November 2024) to instruct counsel and it was unclear whether counsel would even advise renewal of the application.
• The respondent filed written submissions opposing vacatur; the respondent relied on principles of finality and the prejudice and delay an adjournment would cause.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Judge Popplewell) proceeded to analyse the application step by step:

• Procedural compliance and timing: Company A's letters did not identify when they or Attorney Eissa were instructed. The registrar's prompt reply noted the Applicant had ample time to instruct counsel following the renewal filed in November 2024. The Court found Company A had failed to comply promptly with the Court's direction to copy the letters to the respondent, and that such non-compliance was unjustified.
• Scope of the renewed application: The Court emphasised the renewal was based on the grounds settled by Attorney Krolick and that, absent an application to amend, those were the only grounds properly before the Court. The Court concluded that the Applicant's submissions suggested an attempt to start afresh rather than to pursue the existing lodged grounds.
• Availability of funds and need for preparation: The Court found no evidence that the Applicant lacked funds to instruct counsel prior to resolution of the costs dispute; in the confiscation proceedings the judge had found hidden assets capable of satisfying the benefit figure. The Court rejected the proposition that proper preparation for the renewal required reviewing all underlying documents and transcripts: counsel newly instructed could apply their minds to the existing grounds within the time available.
• Fairness and ambush concerns: Allowing Attorney Eissa to make expanded oral submissions risked introducing new matters without prior notice, unfairly prejudicing the respondent. The Court described the manner of presenting the application as amounting to ambush and was unwilling to permit oral expansion beyond the content of the Company A letters and the originally lodged grounds.
• Prejudice and administration of justice: The Court concluded that vacating the hearing would cause unfair prejudice, further substantial delay, waste of court time (including reading already undertaken), and prejudice to other parties, including Applicant 2 whose family proceedings were stayed pending resolution of these renewed applications.
• Discretionary indication on leave: The Court indicated it was currently minded to grant limited leave to both Applicants, but emphasised this was narrowly defined and did not determine ancillary consequences (such as extension of stays in other proceedings), which may require further consideration by the family court.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision was to REJECT the application to vacate the hearing.

Implications:

• The hearing was to proceed on the basis of the existing grounds settled by Attorney Krolick and the material properly before the Court; the Applicant was not permitted to expand orally beyond the notified letters or to use the adjournment to "perfect" new grounds without formal application to amend.
• The Court warned that vacatur would have caused further delay and unfair prejudice to the respondent and to other parties (including Applicant 2), and that the application as presented suggested an attempt to revisit the case afresh rather than to pursue the renewed grounds.
• The Court indicated an intention to grant limited leave to both Applicants on narrow grounds, but did not set wider precedent beyond the direct effect on the parties; no new legal principle was established for general application in other cases.