24 Dec 2020
The Judge concluded the affidavit evidence justified inferring the respondents had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and that there was a real risk the identified property would be disposed of if notice were given; therefore the statutory criteria for a without-notice restraining order under s22 (and restraint under ss24–25) were met and the order was made.
11 Jun 2009
Because the parties consented and the mortgagee's registered interest was to be excluded, the Court granted the application and made restraining orders preventing disposal of the respondents' undivided half shares and ordered the Official Assignee to take custody and control of the property.
7 Jul 2008
The Court found sufficient evidence to make a restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 and concluded it had jurisdiction to grant custody and control to the Official Assignee subject to specified limitations; accordingly the restraining order was granted and custody and control was limited to valuation access and inspections at intervals of not less than two months on reasonable notice, without prejudice to the third respondent's interest.