IPE Marble Arch Limited v Anthony Moran
This case is a key reference for developers, opponents of projects, and legal practitioners regarding disputes involving allegations of fraud and forgery in the context of commercial and property development. It also provides clarity on the procedural jurisdictional limits of criminal litigation and the inability to recover associated legal costs.
First Decision: Refusal of the Voluntary Bill of Indictment:
Case citation: [2024] EWHC 1375
Date: June 2024
IPE Marble Arch Limited, a property development company, planned to develop a residential property that was known as Marble Arch Apartments. Anthony Moran opposed this development.
Anthony Moran was alleged to have used forged documents and false identities to disrupt the project.
Following private prosecution initiated by IPE Marble Arch Limited, six charges were sent to the Crown Court at Southwark. On 12th October 2023, His Honour Judge Tomlinson dismissed all charges against Anthony Moran, on the grounds of insufficient evidence, particularly regarding his intent to defraud.
IPE Marble Arch Limited sought leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment against Moran, arguing that Judge Tomlinson had made a substantive error of law in dismissing the charges, contending that the false identities used by Moran in emails constituted forgery and fraud.
Justice Yip reviewed the evidence submitted by IPE Marble Arch Limited and the High Court agreed with the Crown Court’s assessment that the evidence was insufficient to prove the intent required for both forgery and fraud under the applicable law and the application to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment was refused.
The case highlights the rigorous evidentiary requirements for criminal charges, particularly the necessity of proving intent.
Second Decision: Costs Application:
Case citation: [2024] EWHC 2913 (KB)
Date: November 2024
Following the dismissal, Anthony Moran sought an order for his legal costs to be covered by IPE Marble Arch Limited on an indemnity basis. The central issue was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to award costs in proceedings related to a voluntary bill of indictment. The Court concluded that such proceedings are criminal in nature and, as a result, fall under the criminal costs regime, which does not provide a mechanism for awarding costs in these specific circumstances. The application for costs was dismissed.
Summary
Costs in criminal proceedings are subject to a specific framework, and the High Court does not have inherent jurisdiction to award costs in voluntary bill of indictment applications.
The case underscores the limitations on recovering costs in criminal cases, particularly in the context of voluntary bills of indictment. The decision clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of the High Court concerning costs in criminal proceedings.
How can PIC assist
Partners in Costs have specialist expertise in costs that ensures efficient management of legal costs, compliance with procedural rules and the best chance of recovering costs effectively.
Linzi Walker, Costs Lawyer
20.02.2025