SOLICITOR-GENERAL V SAGGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-001456

SOLICITOR-GENERAL V SAGGERS HC AK CIV-2008-404-001456

Because there was significant commonality between the forfeiture proceeding and the relationship property proceeding and a real risk of inconsistent findings if heard separately, the court directed under r 10.12 High Court Rules that both proceedings be heard at the same time before the same Judge; the Registry was directed to allocate a case management conference and costs for the hearing were ordered to lie where they fall.

Citation
openlaw-c17608ca_8974_4bb6_89be_8827576bbd26.pdf
Parties
Applicant (civ 2008 404 001456): The Solicitor-General of New Zealand; Respondent (civ 2008 404 001456 and CIV 2010 404 005027): David George Saggers aka David George Bracey; Applicant (civ 2010 404 005027): Shona Leanne Bracey; Respondent (civ 2010 404 005027): David George Saggers
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture Application Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and Relationship Property Claim Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Direction/case Management Hearing on Whether to Hear Proceedings Together Under R 10.12 High Court Rules (oral Judgment)
Outcome
Direction granted under r 10.12 that CIV-2008-404-001456 and CIV-2010-404-005027 be heard at the same time before the same Judge; Registry to allocate a case management conference; costs to lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, Property (relationships) Act 1976, Consolidation/joinder, High Court Rules R 10.12
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture Family Law Property Law Civil Procedure Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 Property (relationships) Act 1976 +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 Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Solicitor-General of New Zealand

Applicant (civ 2008 404 001456)

David George Saggers aka David George Bracey

Respondent (civ 2008 404 001456 and CIV 2010 404 005027)

Shona Leanne Bracey

Applicant (civ 2010 404 005027)

David George Saggers

Respondent (civ 2010 404 005027)

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture Application Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and Relationship Property Claim Under the Property (relationships) Act 1976 / Direction/case Management Hearing on Whether to Hear Proceedings Together Under R 10.12 High Court Rules (oral Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether forfeiture proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 proceedings should be heard together under r 10.12 of the High Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether separate hearings would risk inconsistent findings of fact or law
  3. 3 How to protect competing private property claims from state forfeiture processes

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was significant commonality between the forfeiture proceeding and the relationship property proceeding and a real risk of inconsistent findings if heard separately, the court directed under r 10.12 High Court Rules that both proceedings be heard at the same time before the same Judge; the Registry was directed to allocate a case management conference and costs for the hearing were ordered to lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Direction granted under r 10.12 that CIV-2008-404-001456 and CIV-2010-404-005027 be heard at the same time before the same Judge; Registry to allocate a case management conference; costs to lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Proceedings CIV-2008-404-001456 and CIV-2010-404-005027 to be heard at the same time before the same Judge pursuant to r 10.12 High Court Rules
  • Registry to allocate a case management conference at the earliest opportunity