6 Nov 2019
Given the affidavit evidence linking the respondent to a methamphetamine operation, the respondent's admissions that the $15,845 derived from his involvement in criminal activity, and the lack of opposition, the court was satisfied the funds were criminal proceeds and granted a forfeiture order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
13 Apr 2016
Because service complied with prior court directions, the respondents did not oppose, and the applicants filed a comprehensive memorandum justifying the relief, the Court adopted the memorandum and made the order under section 74 in terms of the applicants' paragraph 1.1.
11 Feb 2016
The Court was satisfied that service requirements were met, that the Body Corporate had obtained the necessary approvals in accordance with Tisch v Body Corporate, and that the proposed variation to the funding mechanism was properly approved by a unanimous resolution; accordingly the Court granted the order settling the repair scheme under s74 Unit Titles Act 2010 and made no order for costs.
11 Sept 2015
On the evidence—affidavits from investigators and the respondent's admission in a video interview—the cash of $49,900 was tainted and the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, therefore the grounds for the forfeiture orders were established and the draft orders were made.
18 Oct 2013
Because the judgment creditor was successful and the judgment debtor did not oppose the application, the court awarded costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements as set out in the creditor's filed schedule.
11 Dec 2012
Because the respondent did not oppose the application and the Court was satisfied that the grounds for forfeiture were amply made out, the Court granted the forfeiture order.
17 Nov 2008
The application was granted because proof of service and a deposition were on file demonstrating that the applicant either did not owe the money or that any debt was not yet due, and there was no notice of opposition or affidavit to the contrary.