19 Mar 2018
The Court approved the parties' settlement under s95 because it adequately gave effect to the Act’s primary purpose by securing forfeiture of property derived from criminal activity, recognised the potential relationship property interest of the interested party, and provided certainty by avoiding further litigation.
16 Feb 2017
The Court refused to appoint an administrator and dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment application because the applicant could not satisfy the s 88(2) 'serious injustice' threshold nor show that appointment under s 6(2) or s 19 was necessary or expedient; s 25(3) could not provide meaningful relief in the circumstances and the proposed family protection claim was weak and unlikely to justify the costs and practical consequences of appointment.
18 Jul 2016
The s119 application to vest disclaimed rights was denied because vesting would be unfair and oppressive to the respondent given the prior High Court finding that the applicant had no prima facie relationship property claim, the applicant's bankruptcy arose from unpaid costs to that respondent, the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant, his non‑compliant and scandalous pleadings, and the risk that the respondent could not obtain security for costs; leave under s88B was denied for identical reasons and because the proposed proceedings were frivolous, scandalous and not in compliance with…