Murphy v. GM PB PC Ltd. [1999] IEHC 5 (4th June, 1999)

Murphy v. GM PB PC Ltd. [1999] IEHC 5 (4th June, 1999)

The appointment of a receiver over the property does not preclude the making of an interlocutory order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, as the Act's scheme and purpose envisage such orders even after a receiver is appointed. Technical defects in the plenary summons or service are not fatal where no prejudice is caused and an unconditional appearance has been entered. The Act does not have extra-territorial effect in the absence of clear legislative intent, but in this case, the relevant acts and parties were within the jurisdiction.

Citation
[1999] IEHC 5
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Michael F. Murphy; Defendant/respondent: GM PB PC Limited; Defendant/respondent: GH
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Order / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Interlocutory Relief, Jurisdiction, Statutory Construction, Extraterritoriality
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Proceeds of Crime Interlocutory Relief Jurisdiction Statutory Construction Extraterritoriality

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff/applicant

GM PB PC Limited

Defendant/respondent

GH

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Order / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 can be made when a receiver has already been appointed over the property in question
  2. 2 Whether defects in the plenary summons or service are fatal to the proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 applies to property located outside the State

Ratio Decidendi

The appointment of a receiver over the property does not preclude the making of an interlocutory order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996, as the Act's scheme and purpose envisage such orders even after a receiver is appointed. Technical defects in the plenary summons or service are not fatal where no prejudice is caused and an unconditional appearance has been entered. The Act does not have extra-territorial effect in the absence of clear legislative intent, but in this case, the relevant acts and parties were within the jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Interlocutory order under section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 prohibiting the respondents from disposing of or dealing with the specified monies.
  • Ancillary order for the appointment of Mr. Galvin as receiver over the said monies.