F McK -v- D C & Ors [2006] IEHC 185 (26 May 2006)

F McK -v- D C & Ors [2006] IEHC 185 (26 May 2006)

Only the failure to disclose the arrest of D. C. and the non-availability of business documentation was material, but its relevance was marginal and disclosure occurred immediately after the order; the court's discretion is exercised against vacating the order as the substantive requirements for the s. 2 order were met and no deliberate non-disclosure occurred.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 185
Parties
Plaintiff: F. McK.; Defendant: D. C.; Defendant: S. T. Limited; Defendant: B. H. Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Vacate Freezing Order Under S. 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 / Post Interim Order, Hearing on Material Non Disclosure
Outcome
application to vacate freezing order refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Freezing Orders, Ex Parte Applications, Material Non Disclosure, Jurisdictional Issues
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Freezing Orders Ex Parte Applications Material Non Disclosure Jurisdictional Issues

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. McK.

Plaintiff

D. C.

Defendant

S. T. Limited

Defendant

B. H. Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Vacate Freezing Order Under S. 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996 / Post Interim Order, Hearing on Material Non Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether material non-disclosure occurred in the ex parte application for a freezing order under s. 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996
  2. 2 Whether any non-disclosure warrants vacating the freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

Only the failure to disclose the arrest of D. C. and the non-availability of business documentation was material, but its relevance was marginal and disclosure occurred immediately after the order; the court's discretion is exercised against vacating the order as the substantive requirements for the s. 2 order were met and no deliberate non-disclosure occurred.

Court Disposition

application to vacate freezing order refused

Orders

  • s. 2 freezing order remains in force
  • relief sought in notice of motion refused