NSW Crime Commission v Stock [2024] NSWSC 1659

NSW Crime Commission v Stock [2024] NSWSC 1659

The applicant did not establish that the orders were made irregularly, illegally or against good faith. The respondent was entitled to proceed on the information available and was under no obligation to further protect or advance the applicant's interests. Discretionary factors, including the substantial lapse of time, also warranted dismissal of the application.

Parties
Respondent on Motion: NSW Crime Commission; First Defendant: William John Stock; Second Defendant: William Michael Stock; Applicant on Motion: Robbie Stimpson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Set Aside Prior Orders / Determination of Motion Post Finalisation of Substantive Proceedings
Outcome
Motions of both applicant and respondent dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
Applications to Set Aside Orders, Equitable Interests, Judgment Finality, Restraining Orders
Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Applications to Set Aside Orders Equitable Interests Judgment Finality Restraining Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NSW Crime Commission

Respondent on Motion

William John Stock

First Defendant

William Michael Stock

Second Defendant

Robbie Stimpson

Applicant on Motion

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Set Aside Prior Orders / Determination of Motion Post Finalisation of Substantive Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Court should set aside orders made in 2009 finalising the substantive proceedings under r 36.15 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether orders were made irregularly, illegally or against good faith
  3. 3 Whether applicant established an enforceable equitable mortgage and was denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish that the orders were made irregularly, illegally or against good faith. The respondent was entitled to proceed on the information available and was under no obligation to further protect or advance the applicant's interests. Discretionary factors, including the substantial lapse of time, also warranted dismissal of the application.

Court Disposition

Motions of both applicant and respondent dismissed; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant's motion filed 23 April 2024 is dismissed.
  • The respondent's motion filed 15 August 2024 is dismissed.