New South Wales Crime Commission v Luu [2016] NSWSC 664

New South Wales Crime Commission v Luu [2016] NSWSC 664

Having considered the plaintiff's material, including Jonathan Lee Spark's affidavit and the police facts concerning cannabis, cash and drug supply equipment found at the Fairfield Heights address, the Court was satisfied that the suspicion that the defendant had engaged in serious crime related activity was reasonably held and therefore made the restraining and ancillary orders sought under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application for Restraining Order Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw) / On the Papers; Ex Parte
Outcome
Orders made for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['restraining Order' 'ex Parte Application' 'serious Crime Related Activity' 'drug Supply' 'examination on Oath' 'verified Statement of Property and Liabilities']
['procedure' 'criminal Assets Recovery'] ['restraining Order' 'ex Parte Application' 'serious Crime Related Activity' 'drug Supply' 'examination on Oath' 'verified Statement of Property and Liabilities']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Application for Restraining Order Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw) / On the Papers; Ex Parte

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were reasonable grounds for the suspicion that Thi Quyen Luu had engaged in serious crime related activity as defined by s 6 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).' 'Whether a restraining order and ancillary examination and disclosure orders should be made under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the plaintiff's material, including Jonathan Lee Spark's affidavit and the police facts concerning cannabis, cash and drug supply equipment found at the Fairfield Heights address, the Court was satisfied that the suspicion that the defendant had engaged in serious crime related activity was reasonably held and therefore made the restraining and ancillary orders sought under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Orders made for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['Upon the Plaintiff giving the usual undertaking as to damages, and having had regard to the affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn 3 May 2016, the Court found there were reasonable grounds for the suspicion stated therein.' 'Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), no person other...