McK. -v- H. & anor [2006] IESC 63 (28 November 2006)

McK. -v- H. & anor [2006] IESC 63 (28 November 2006)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court orders under s.3 and s.7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 were properly made. The proceedings were not wrongly treated as interlocutory, the appellants suffered no procedural injustice, and the statutory provisions lawfully permitted the admission of belief and hearsay evidence. The orders did not constitute forfeiture and were not statute-barred. The appointment of a receiver was justified on equitable grounds to preserve the property.

Citation
[2006] IESC 63
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: McK.; Defendant/appellant: H.; Defendant/appellant: Anor.; Notice Party: Tracy Homan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Under Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Hearsay Evidence, Appointment of Receiver, Statute of Limitations, Audi Alteram Partem, Equitable Principles
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Property Law Proceeds of Crime Hearsay Evidence Appointment of Receiver Statute of Limitations Audi Alteram Partem +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McK.

Plaintiff/respondent

H.

Defendant/appellant

Anor.

Defendant/appellant

Tracy Homan

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Orders Under Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in granting orders under s.3 and s.7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were wrongly treated as interlocutory
  3. 3 Whether the admission of hearsay and belief evidence was lawful and constitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court orders under s.3 and s.7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 were properly made. The proceedings were not wrongly treated as interlocutory, the appellants suffered no procedural injustice, and the statutory provisions lawfully permitted the admission of belief and hearsay evidence. The orders did not constitute forfeiture and were not statute-barred. The appointment of a receiver was justified on equitable grounds to preserve the property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court orders affirmed.

Orders

  • Affirmation of High Court order under s.3 Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 (property freezing)
  • Affirmation of High Court order appointing receiver with power of sale under s.7 Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996