Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hills Greenery Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 847

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hills Greenery Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 847

Leave was granted because Bilal Allam had a good reason for not appearing at the forfeiture hearing, namely that he was told the hearing would be adjourned in reliance on the AFP solicitor's 17 March 2023 email, and he had a good reason for not making a compensation application before the forfeiture order because he relied on retained lawyers who failed to make the necessary applications. The proposed applications were not futile because there were triable issues about whether his interest in the property was proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of a serious offence, including issues concerning the lease, his asserted lack of knowledge, the extent of tobacco cultivation, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for an Exclusion Order and a Compensation Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) / Post Forfeiture Order Leave Application
Outcome
Leave granted to Bilal Allam to apply for an exclusion order and to make an application for a compensation order; costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['forfeiture Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'compensation Orders' 'leave to Apply After Forfeiture' 'good Reason for Non Appearance' 'instrument of an Offence' 'proceeds of Unlawful Activity']
['proceeds of Crime' 'criminal Confiscation'] ['forfeiture Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'compensation Orders' 'leave to Apply After Forfeiture' 'good Reason for Non Appearance' 'instrument of an Offence' 'proceeds of Unlawful Activity']

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 for Leave to Apply for an Exclusion Order and a Compensation Order Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (cth) / Post Forfeiture Order Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bilal Allam had a good reason for not appearing at the hearing of the forfeiture application under s 74 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).' 'Whether Bilal Allam had a good reason for not making a compensation application before the forfeiture order was made under s 78 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).' 'Whether leave should be refused on the basis that the proposed exclusion and compensation applications would be futile.' 'Whether there were triable issues as to whether the Bevendale property was proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of a serious offence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because Bilal Allam had a good reason for not appearing at the forfeiture hearing, namely that he was told the hearing would be adjourned in reliance on the AFP solicitor's 17 March 2023 email, and he had a good reason for not making a compensation application before the forfeiture order because he relied on retained lawyers who failed to make the necessary applications. The proposed applications were not futile because there were triable issues about whether his interest in the property was proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of a serious offence, including issues concerning the lease, his asserted lack of knowledge, the extent of tobacco cultivation, and the...

Court Disposition

Leave granted to Bilal Allam to apply for an exclusion order and to make an application for a compensation order; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 74 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) I give leave to Bilal Allam to apply for an order under s 73 of the Act.' 'Pursuant to s 78 of the Act I give leave to Bilal Allam to make an application under s 77 of the Act.' "The parties' costs of the application are costs in the cause."]