Murphy -v- Gilligan and ors [2008] IESC 70 (19 December 2008)

Murphy -v- Gilligan and ors [2008] IESC 70 (19 December 2008)

Section 3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 does not permit the High Court to discharge or vary an interlocutory order on the basis of alleged procedural injustice in its making; it is limited to cases where the property is not the proceeds of crime or where the order causes injustice by being in force. The appeals seeking to discharge the order on procedural grounds must therefore be dismissed.

Citation
[2008] IESC 70
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Michael F. Murphy; First Named Defendant: John Gilligan; Second Named Defendant/appellant: Geraldine Gilligan; Third Named Defendant: Darren Gilligan; Fourth Named Defendant: Tracey Gilligan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal (multiple Appeals and Motions) Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders, Specifically Regarding the Discharge of an Interlocutory Order Under Section 3(3) of the Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Freezing Orders, Interlocutory Orders, Disposal Orders, Fair Procedures, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Asset Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Freezing Orders Interlocutory Orders Disposal Orders Fair Procedures +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael F. Murphy

Plaintiff/respondent

John Gilligan

First Named Defendant

Geraldine Gilligan

Second Named Defendant/appellant

Darren Gilligan

Third Named Defendant

Tracey Gilligan

Fourth Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (multiple Appeals and Motions) Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Orders, Specifically Regarding the Discharge of an Interlocutory Order Under Section 3(3) of the Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application under section 3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 can be used to discharge an interlocutory order on the basis of alleged procedural injustice in its making
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 3(3) to revisit the appropriateness of an original section 3 order on procedural grounds
  3. 3 Whether the statutory scheme provides adequate opportunities for affected parties to challenge freezing orders

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 does not permit the High Court to discharge or vary an interlocutory order on the basis of alleged procedural injustice in its making; it is limited to cases where the property is not the proceeds of crime or where the order causes injustice by being in force. The appeals seeking to discharge the order on procedural grounds must therefore be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • The appeals against the refusal to discharge the section 3(1) order on procedural grounds are dismissed.
  • The interlocutory order made by Moriarty J. remains in force.