McK. (F. J.) v. B. (M.) [2005] IEHC 164 (26 May 2005)

McK. (F. J.) v. B. (M.) [2005] IEHC 164 (26 May 2005)

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 as the Plaintiff relied on crimes committed within the jurisdiction, that interim orders could be made prior to the commencement of proceedings following established practice, that service out of jurisdiction was effected in accordance with the court's order and was not a nullity, and that the Hague Convention did not apply to abrogate the relevant rules.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 164
Parties
Plaintiff: F J McK; Defendant: M B
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Outcome
Defendant's application refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Interim Injunctions, Rules of the Superior Courts
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction Interim Injunctions Rules of the Superior Courts

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J McK

Plaintiff

M B

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Motion to Dismiss and Set Aside Ex Parte Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 applies to crimes committed abroad
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant orders under the Act
  3. 3 Whether service out of jurisdiction was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it had jurisdiction under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 as the Plaintiff relied on crimes committed within the jurisdiction, that interim orders could be made prior to the commencement of proceedings following established practice, that service out of jurisdiction was effected in accordance with the court's order and was not a nullity, and that the Hague Convention did not apply to abrogate the relevant rules.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application refused

Orders

  • Relief sought on the Notice of Motion refused