HRISS v NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION [2002] NSWSC 23

HRISS v NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION [2002] NSWSC 23

Mr Hriss did not establish any legal or equitable interest, right, power or privilege in the Fine Flower land or in the $200,000 deposited in the Thomakakis account. The transactions showed, at most, loans connected with the purchase of land and replacement funds for a surety, not any proprietary interest of Mr Hriss. In any event, the forfeiture orders were for interests of Texas Stud Pty Limited and Mario Thomakakis, not Mr Hriss, so he lacked standing to apply under s 25.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Concerning Exclusion Orders and Setting Aside Forfeiture Related Orders / Respondent's Amended Notice of Motion Under Pt 13 R 5 to Dismiss the Applicant's Motion
Outcome
The Commission succeeded; orders were made in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the amended notice of motion filed on 4 February 2002.
Legal Topics
['forfeiture Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'interest in Property' 'standing' 'summary Dismissal']
['criminal Assets Recovery' 'civil Procedure' 'property Law'] ['forfeiture Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'interest in Property' 'standing' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Application Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Concerning Exclusion Orders and Setting Aside Forfeiture Related Orders / Respondent's Amended Notice of Motion Under Pt 13 R 5 to Dismiss the Applicant's Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Hriss had an interest in the Fine Flower land within the meaning of s 7 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.' 'Whether Mr Hriss had standing under s 25 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 where the forfeiture order was for the interest of Texas Stud Pty Limited rather than his interest.' 'Whether Mr Hriss had an interest in the $200,000 deposited in the names of M and T Thomakakis.' 'Whether Mr Hriss had standing to challenge the forfeiture of the interest of Mario Thomakakis in the $200,000.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Hriss did not establish any legal or equitable interest, right, power or privilege in the Fine Flower land or in the $200,000 deposited in the Thomakakis account. The transactions showed, at most, loans connected with the purchase of land and replacement funds for a surety, not any proprietary interest of Mr Hriss. In any event, the forfeiture orders were for interests of Texas Stud Pty Limited and Mario Thomakakis, not Mr Hriss, so he lacked standing to apply under s 25.

Court Disposition

The Commission succeeded; orders were made in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the amended notice of motion filed on 4 February 2002.

Orders

  • ['Orders in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the amended notice of motion filed today.']