M. (F. M.) v. M. (B.) & Anor [2006] IEHC 396 (3 November 2006)

M. (F. M.) v. M. (B.) & Anor [2006] IEHC 396 (3 November 2006)

The court has no power to discharge or vary the section 3 order under section 3(3) or its inherent jurisdiction because the alleged injustice relates to the manner of obtaining the order, not its operation, and the court is functus officio except as provided by statute.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 396
Parties
Plaintiff: M F M; Defendant: B M; Defendant: K M
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 / Post Interlocutory Order, Motion to Discharge or Vary Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Interlocutory Orders, Court Jurisdiction, Functus Officio
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Interlocutory Orders Court Jurisdiction Functus Officio

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M F M

Plaintiff

B M

Defendant

K M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 / Post Interlocutory Order, Motion to Discharge or Vary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to discharge or vary a section 3 order under section 3(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 or its inherent jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether injustice in the manner of obtaining the order allows for discharge or variation under section 3(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no power to discharge or vary the section 3 order under section 3(3) or its inherent jurisdiction because the alleged injustice relates to the manner of obtaining the order, not its operation, and the court is functus officio except as provided by statute.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Defendants' motion for discharge or variation of section 3 order is refused