M. (M.F.) v. C. (M.) [2000] IEHC 109; [2001] 2 IR 385 (19th December, 2000)

M. (M.F.) v. C. (M.) [2000] IEHC 109; [2001] 2 IR 385 (19th December, 2000)

The court held that both a freezing order and the appointment of a Receiver to manage the property could be made in a single application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The property in question exceeded the £10,000 threshold based on admissible evidence of its value, and the relevant value is the property in the defendant's possession or control, not merely the defendant's equity. The constitutional challenge based on Article 29(3) and the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected, as Article 29(3) does not incorporate the Convention into the Irish Constitution or confer rights on individuals.

Citation
[2000] IEHC 109
Parties
Applicant: Applicant (Assistant Commissioner M.); Respondent: First Defendant; Respondent: Second Defendant; Respondent: Third Defendant; Respondent: Fourth Defendant
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 / Application for Freezing Order and Appointment of Receiver
Outcome
Interlocutory order granted; Receiver appointed to manage property and receive rents; Defendant prohibited from disposing of or dealing with the property.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Freezing Orders, Appointment of Receiver, Constitutional Challenge, Human Rights, Burden of Proof, Valuation of Property
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Property Law Proceeds of Crime Freezing Orders Appointment of Receiver Constitutional Challenge Human Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant (Assistant Commissioner M.)

Applicant

First Defendant

Respondent

Second Defendant

Respondent

Third Defendant

Respondent

Fourth Defendant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 / Application for Freezing Order and Appointment of Receiver

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Receiver can be appointed at the same time as an interlocutory order under Section 7(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the property in question meets the £10,000 threshold under Section 3(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Whether the procedures under the Act violate constitutional or human rights protections, specifically Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 29(3) of the Irish Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that both a freezing order and the appointment of a Receiver to manage the property could be made in a single application under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. The property in question exceeded the £10,000 threshold based on admissible evidence of its value, and the relevant value is the property in the defendant's possession or control, not merely the defendant's equity. The constitutional challenge based on Article 29(3) and the European Convention on Human Rights was rejected, as Article 29(3) does not incorporate the Convention into the Irish Constitution or confer rights on individuals.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory order granted; Receiver appointed to manage property and receive rents; Defendant prohibited from disposing of or dealing with the property.

Orders

  • Appointment of Receiver to manage property at W. R., Finglas, Dublin 11 and receive rents pending trial.
  • Order prohibiting the Defendant from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the property under Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996.