A CONVICTED heroin dealer has won the first round of a court fight to stop the home lived in by his wife and her handicapped daughter from being sold to cover a drugs money confiscation order.

Judges were told John Kane and his wife - who cares for her handicapped adult daughter - believed the house had been transferred solely into her name more than ten years ago.

Kane, 52, who is serving a nine-year jail sentence, claims solicitors negligently failed to carry out the couple's 1988 instructions to transfer the house at Tang Hall Lane, York, into his wife's name.

He was convicted in York Crown Court in October 1998 of nine counts of supplying heroin, possessing heroin and cannabis with intent to supply, common assault and affray.

He was jailed for seven-and-a-half years and also ordered to serve 18 months of a previous unexpired sentence for supplying LSD.

The Crown Court judge went on to find Kane had benefited in the sum of £40,000 from drug trafficking. He ordered £20,000 worth of realisable assets be confiscated.

Three of his cars were sold for £650, while most of the balance was to come from his half-share in the house.

The sentencing judge had ordered Kane to serve an extra 12 months sentence if the confiscation order was not complied with.

Now, Mr Justice Garland, sitting in London's Appeal Court with Mr Justice Nelson, has given Kane permission to challenge the confiscation order after hearing arguments that there had been no proper determination of the extent of his realisable assets.

"In October 1988, Kane was in custody awaiting trial for robbery and clearly was facing a substantial custodial sentence," Mr Justice Garland said.

"A solicitor was instructed to transfer the house into his wife's name. A letter was sent to their building society, which sent back an application form and a request for a £40 fee.

"The solicitors said they had not completed the transfer solely into Mrs Kane's name because she never sent back the form."

But the judge said the building society had confirmed they did receive the form and the £40 fee, and had been prepared to agree to the transfer.

"Kane contends the solicitors were negligent in failing to carry out their instructions. He and his wife believed she was the sole owner," said Mr Justice Garland.

Kane said his wife paid the mortgage and various outgoings, while he paid for some improvements largely to accomodate Mrs Kane's severely handicapped daughter.

Kane contended that he had been given no opportunity to argue that his interest in the property was nil or confined to the value of the improvements he had paid for.

No date was set for the full hearing of his case.