New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Examination orders

Legal area

Court

8 Mar 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RODRIGUEZ [2021] NZHC 425

Citation

[2021] NZHC 425
Court

High Court

Extension of the restraining order was justified because reasonable grounds remained and ongoing international MLAT/FIU inquiries made further time necessary; a nine month extension from 12 December 2020 (to 10 September 2021) struck a proportionate balance between public interest in preserving assets and respondent's prejudice; no undertaking as to damages was required because there was no evidence of dilatory conduct or bad faith, the Official Assignee preserves the funds, and respondent has an alternative remedy to sue for damages if restraint proves unjustified.
26 Feb 2021

POLICE v WOOD [2021] NZHC 310

Citation

[2021] NZHC 310
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the $56,370 was derived from the supply of methamphetamine based on cellphone messaging linking occupants, the packaging of cash in customer-sized bundles, respondent's gang association and relevant convictions, inconsistent legitimate income and refusal/unwillingness to provide a credible alternative explanation; therefore s50(1) required the Court to make an assets forfeiture order and no s51 undue hardship argument was advanced.
16 Dec 2016

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BURGESS [2016] NZHC 3096

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3096
Court

High Court

The Court held the Commissioner was substantially successful and awarded costs for the substantive forfeiture applications; however s45 Legal Services Act prevents enforcing costs against legally aided persons absent exceptional circumstances, which were not made out for Robin Burgess and Louise Brinsden, so the Court recorded what would have been awarded under s45(5) but did not enforce them; Karl Burgess was awarded assessed costs reflecting partial success; Mrs Burgess was awarded partial relief on the merits but overall ordered to pay net costs to the Commissioner after set-off; the 2011…
13 May 2015

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BURGESS & ANOR [2015] NZHC 1008

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1008
Court

High Court

The Court found the delay in bringing forfeiture proceedings was justified by the need to complete examination orders and the criminal process, noting respondents had consented to multiple extensions; therefore it was not appropriate to discharge restraining orders. The Court further held that restrained assets must be preserved given the scale of offending, but that limited relief was appropriate for basic living costs and ordered continuation of the interim $800/week payment to Mrs Burgess pending further order; requests for increased payments or business funding were dismissed.
5 Mar 2015

E LI v THE DISTRICT COURT [2015] NZHC 1605

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1280
Court

High Court

Interim relief was refused because examination orders are investigative authorisations analogous to search warrants and are generally premature for judicial review absent exceptional factors (bad faith, malice, jurisdictional nullity). The District Court's ex parte judicial oversight is the statutory safeguard, the evidential threshold for obtaining an examination order is low and there was no demonstrated exceptional circumstance here. Denial of access to the District Court file was consistent with the criminal procedural regime. Consequently, the applicant failed to establish the strong cas…
4 Feb 2015

YAN & YOU v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2015] NZHC 141

Citation

[2015] NZHC 141
Court

High Court

Section 93 of the CPRA applies to the present challenge because the applicants seek to prevent the Commissioner from conducting examinations authorised by the District Court and s93 permits the Commissioner to continue exercising investigatory powers despite interim proceedings; legislative history and statutory purpose show intention to avoid frustrating investigations, making interim relief futile where exercise of powers would continue; accordingly the interim application was dismissed and the Commissioner may proceed with the examination.
25 Oct 2013

NORRIE AND Anor as Joint and Several Liquidators of PAKIRI INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) of Greenpark Road, Auckland v SUTICH & ORS [2013] NZHC 2823

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2823
Court

High Court

The liquidators acted responsibly in seeking documents and examination orders; consequently the Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the fourth respondent but reduced the 2B assessed amount of $2,189 by 33.3% to reflect the liquidators' responsible conduct.
25 Feb 2013

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE V ROBERT ANTHONY DALESZAK HC GIS CIV-2011-416-199

Citation

openlaw-5ae2761c_8a29_4059_b5e8_1da4e5c9e8c9.pdf
Court

High Court

The transactions described in the applications provided reasonable grounds for the Commissioner to believe the respondents could answer questions and produce documents relevant to recovery of criminal proceeds, and therefore examination orders should be made.
1 Aug 2011

THE COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE V PAMELA ANN GREEN HC WN CIV-2010-485-964

Citation

openlaw-2d7342c4_9a02_49ef_a3c9_8b93a8f99ad2.pdf
Court

High Court

There is no automatic right for a proposed examinee to notice or to retain the application under the High Court Rules for examination orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009; the Act contemplated an ex parte investigative procedure similar to search warrants, but judges have discretion to require notice or a hearing in exceptional cases where NZBORA rights or collateral proceedings justify it; in the present case no notice was required and the respondent must return the application and related court documents to the registry.
31 Mar 2011

LOUISE RUTH CHANWAI V THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HC ROT CIV-2010-463-544

Citation

openlaw-e3b8b7dd_88cb_4f9f_9a9a_c32cf82fe4f4.pdf
Court

High Court

Examination orders under ss106‑107 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 are not amenable to pre‑execution variation by the court because the Act provides no statutory review mechanism and the general High Court Rules power to vary interlocutory orders (r7.49) does not apply to examination orders; therefore the ex‑parte application to vary the examination order must be dismissed and any objection based on the examinee's claimed lack of knowledge is a matter for the examinee to assert in the examination and for police remedies under the Act.