Official Assignee v Mihaka

Case [2017] NZHC 2632


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CIV-2012-463-000359 [2017] NZHC 2632

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009

BETWEEN

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Applicant

AND

SHARON MARIE MIHAKA First Respondent

AND

LIONEL JEFFREY MIHAKA Second Respondent

AND

LEAH MARIE GREEN (AKA ARAMANUI)

Third Respondent

Hearing: [On the papers]

Counsel:

M R Harborow and S J McDaid for Applicant
P T Birks for Respondents

Judgment:

27 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment is delivered by me on 27 October 2017 at 11.30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Peter Birks, Barrister, Rotorua

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v MIHAKA [2017] NZHC 2632 [27 October 2017]

[1]      The applicant, the Official Assignee, applies for an order under s 59(1)(b) of the Criminal  Proceeds  Recovery Act  2009  (the “Act”),  effectively to  amend or supplement this Court’s 29 June 2017 profit forfeiture order made under the Act, to permit its order for realisation of property to be given effect.

[2]      The  amendment  or  supplement  is  to  authorise  the  Official  Assignee  to execute documents in the name of the registered proprietor(s) of the subject property, to meet the requirements of the Registrar-General of Land for registration of documents by other than the registered proprietor.

[3]      No response has been forthcoming from the respondent.

[4]      I agree  the  amendment  or  supplement  is  necessary to  give  effect  to  the Court’s profit forfeiture order. As essentially a mechanical addition to the order, the respondent can have no material objection.

[5]      I accordingly order:

(a)       Guy Sayers, of the Official Assignee’s office, has the power to execute any deed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietor(s) of the following real property, and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument, for the purposes of effecting the sale of the property.

(i)All the land the buildings of 6 John Street, Tokoroa, described in certificate of title SA69A/675 South Auckland Land Registration District being 812 square metres more or less being Lot 26 Deposited Plan 6272; and

(ii)All the land and buildings of 5050 State Highway 1, Kinleith, Tokoroa, described in certificate of title SA48A/711 South Auckland Land Registration District being 1/7th share of

2.1242 hectares more or less being Lot 1 Deposited Plan

55068.

—Jagose J

Details
AGLC
Official Assignee v Mihaka [2017] NZHC 2632
Case
[2017] NZHC 2632
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Official Assignee has applied to the High Court of New Zealand for an order to amend and supplement a previous profit forfeiture order made under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The subject of the application is a property located at 6 John Street, Tokoroa, and another at 5050 State Highway 1, Kinleith, Tokoroa. The respondents, Sharon Marie Mihaka, Lionel Jeffrey Mihaka, and Leah Marie Green, have not responded to the application. The Official Assignee seeks to amend the order to allow it to execute documents in the name of the registered proprietors to meet the requirements of the Registrar-General of Land.

The primary legal issue before the court is whether the amendment or supplement to the profit forfeiture order is necessary to give effect to the Court's order. The Official Assignee argues that the amendment is essentially a mechanical addition to the order and that the respondents cannot have a material objection. The court must determine whether the amendment is necessary to ensure the sale of the property can proceed as ordered.

The court found that the amendment or supplement is necessary to give effect to the Court's profit forfeiture order. As it is essentially a mechanical addition to the order, the respondents cannot have a material objection. The court granted the Official Assignee's application, authorising Guy Sayers to execute any deed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietors of the subject property, and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument, for the purposes of effecting the sale of the property.

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.