New South Wales Crime Commission v Ibrahim & anor. [2002] NSWSC 105

New South Wales Crime Commission v Ibrahim & anor. [2002] NSWSC 105

Because Mr and Mrs Ibrahim had been served with the amended summons claiming a forfeiture order, they had notice of the proceedings that led to the assets forfeiture order within s 25(4)(a). Their application for an exclusion order was not made within six months after the assets forfeiture order took effect. The statutory requirements could not be satisfied, so the preliminary question was answered No, the respondents' notice of motion was dismissed, and an adjournment would serve no purpose.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Concerning an Assets Forfeiture Order and an Application for an Exclusion Order. / Interlocutory Hearing of the Applicant's Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of a Preliminary Question, the Respondents' Notice of Motion for an Exclusion Order, and an Application for Adjournment.
Outcome
Adjournment refused; preliminary question answered No; respondents' notice of motion for an exclusion order dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['exclusion Order' 'assets Forfeiture Order' 'six Month Time Limit' 'notice of Proceedings' 'separate Determination of Preliminary Question' 'adjournment']
['criminal Assets Recovery' 'civil Forfeiture' 'civil Procedure'] ['exclusion Order' 'assets Forfeiture Order' 'six Month Time Limit' 'notice of Proceedings' 'separate Determination of Preliminary Question' 'adjournment']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceedings Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Concerning an Assets Forfeiture Order and an Application for an Exclusion Order. / Interlocutory Hearing of the Applicant's Notice of Motion for Separate Determination of a Preliminary Question, the Respondents' Notice of Motion for an Exclusion Order, and an Application for Adjournment.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether service of the amended summons on Mr and Mrs Ibrahim constituted notice of the proceedings that led to the relevant restraining order or assets forfeiture order for the purposes of s 25(4)(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.' 'Whether the respondents made their application for an exclusion order within six months after the assets forfeiture order took effect.' "Whether the respondents' application for an adjournment should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr and Mrs Ibrahim had been served with the amended summons claiming a forfeiture order, they had notice of the proceedings that led to the assets forfeiture order within s 25(4)(a). Their application for an exclusion order was not made within six months after the assets forfeiture order took effect. The statutory requirements could not be satisfied, so the preliminary question was answered No, the respondents' notice of motion was dismissed, and an adjournment would serve no purpose.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; preliminary question answered No; respondents' notice of motion for an exclusion order dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The Court is to determine the following question, separately and prior to the hearing of the notice of motion, filed by the respondents on 14 November 2001: 'Whether the respondents have made their application for an exclusion order within six months after the assets forfeiture order took effect'." "The question...