Woodcroft & Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] NSWCA 128
The restraining order and the order extending the waiting period were made without statutory power—s 48(1) did not empower the restraining order and s 45A(1) required satisfaction of s 44(7A) requirements, which were not met—accordingly, these orders must be set aside.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 May 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal upheld; orders set aside.
- Legal Topics
- ['proceeds of Crime Act' 'restraining Order' 'forfeiture' 'extension of Waiting Period' 'setting Aside Orders' 'interlocutory Appeals' 'ancillary Orders']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether restraining order and order extending waiting period were made without satisfaction of statutory matters required under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (C'th)" 'Whether s 48(1) empowers the making of restraining orders of this kind' 'Whether orders made without compliance with s 44(7A) are invalid and must be set aside']
Ratio Decidendi
The restraining order and the order extending the waiting period were made without statutory power—s 48(1) did not empower the restraining order and s 45A(1) required satisfaction of s 44(7A) requirements, which were not met—accordingly, these orders must be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal upheld; orders set aside.
Orders
- ['Extend time to apply for leave to appeal from the restraining orders and the order made by Simpson J on 9 December 1999.' 'Grant leave to appeal in relation to the orders.' 'Appeal upheld and the orders set aside.' 'Summons otherwise dismissed.' "First opponent pay the claimants' costs of the proceedings in the...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment