11 Apr 2006
SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND V UREN HC CHCH CIV 2005 409 31
- Citation
- openlaw-388e94ca_cdd9_4e37_a145_feafddfebfef.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The Court held that four disputed paintings were not forfeited because ownership or loan status meant they were not tainted; Exhibit E was inadmissible hearsay without evidence from Aaron Uren, but on admitted evidence including payments into a joint account, part performance and constructive trust principles independently established that Saul Uren held an undivided half share in Dismal Stream (charged with the ANZ mortgage) which must be excluded from forfeiture; consequently forfeiture was ordered as to other assets (offender's share and specified chattels, cash, bonds and the painting 'Ra…