Commissioner of Police v Ross (aka Smith)

Case [2022] NZHC 1936


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-688

[2022] NZHC 1936

IN THE MATTER of an appeal under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

CONNIE ELIZABETH ROSS (aka SMITH)

Second Respondent

AND

RICHARD WILLIAM ROSS

Third Respondent

AND

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND

First Interested Party

Hearing: 7, 8 June 2022

Appearances:

C C White for Applicant

P J Kaye for Second and Third Respondents

Judgment:

8 August 2022


JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[Supplementary to [2022] NZHC 1757]


This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2022 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROSS [2022] NZHC 1936 [8 August 2022]

[1]                  By a previous judgment, the Court made an assets forfeiture order whereby a property at 751 Lower Sefton Road, Sefton, Waimakariri is to be realised.1

[2]                  Counsel by memorandum have identified the additional orders that should be made under s 83 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 to enable the Official Assignee to give effect to the judgment.

[3]The suggested orders are appropriate.

[4]I make additional orders to those contained in the earlier judgment as follows:

(a)the Official Assignee is directed to sell 751 Lower Sefton Road, Sefton, Waimakariri (identifier 625165, being an estate in fee simple of an area 4.0000 hectares more or less, Lot 3 Deposited Plan 444619) (“the property”);

(b)for the purposes of effecting the sale of the property in accordance with paragraph (4)(a) above, the Official Assignee (including a person delegated his functions and powers under the Criminal Proceeds (Recover) Act 2009) has the power to execute any deed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietors and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument;

(c)the Official Assignee’s actual costs in effecting the sale of the property first be deducted from the net sale proceeding in accordance with sections 83(1)(a) and 87;

(d)the Official Assignee then repay any borrowings secured against the property;

(e)the Official Assignee then apply the money resulting from the sale of the property in accordance with section 83;


1      Commissioner of Police v Ross [2022] NZHC 1757.

(f)if the respondents fall two months in arrears on their repayments to the Bank of New Zealand under registered mortgage 9648390.3 the Bank of New Zealand is able to sell the property in consultation with the Official Assignee; and

(g)the Official Assignee is then to apply the money resulting from the sale of the property in accordance with s 83 of the Act and in particular, any remaining money to the former interest holder in terms of s 83(1)(e) of the Act.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

Jennifer Connell, Newmarket, Auckland Counsel: P J Kaye, Barrister, Auckland

Details
AGLC
Commissioner of Police v Ross (aka Smith) [2022] NZHC 1936
Case
[2022] NZHC 1936
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Commissioner of Police sought to enforce an assets forfeiture order against Connie Elizabeth Ross (also known as Smith) and Richard William Ross. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch. The court was asked to make additional orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 to enable the Official Assignee to give effect to the earlier judgment. The orders would facilitate the sale of a property located at 751 Lower Sefton Road, Sefton, Waimakariri, and ensure the proper distribution of the sale proceeds.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the suggested orders proposed by the parties were appropriate to enable the Official Assignee to execute the earlier judgment. The court was required to consider the powers and duties of the Official Assignee under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and determine if the proposed orders were consistent with the statutory framework.

The court found that the suggested orders were appropriate and made additional orders to those contained in the earlier judgment. The Official Assignee was directed to sell the property, with the power to execute any necessary deeds or instruments in the name of the registered proprietors. The court also provided for the deduction of the Official Assignee's actual costs from the net sale proceeds, repayment of any borrowings secured against the property, and the distribution of the remaining money in accordance with the Act. The court further specified the circumstances under which the Bank of New Zealand could sell the property if the respondents fell two months in arrears on their repayments under the registered mortgage.

The court concluded by making the additional orders as proposed, ensuring that the Official Assignee could effectively carry out the earlier judgment and distribute the sale proceeds in accordance with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.