Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
As will be clear from the Record Number these proceedings commenced in 1997. The reliefs sought in the proceedings were Orders pursuant to section 2 and 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. An Order pursuant to section 2 was made on the 25 th April 1997: that Order also provides as follows �
The Plaintiff's motion for an Order pursuant to section 3 of the Act came before the Court on the 12 th May 1997 and on that day the Court made an Order pursuant to section 3 but limited as to time until after the 9 th June 1997. By that Order the Court also deemed service of the Notice of Motion seeking relief pursuant to section 3 on the Defendants good and sufficient. On the 9 th June 1997 the section 3 Order was continued without limitation as to its duration.
Having regard to the foregoing it is necessary to have regard to section 3(3) of the 1996 Act and to determine whether the issues raised can be considered by the Court. Section 3(3) provides as follows -
The effect of section 3(3) is that notwithstanding the interlocutory order being a final Order it may be re-opened before the Court if it is shown to the Court
Accordingly I am satisfied that the Court has no power to make the Order sought pursuant to section 3(3) of the Act. Equally I am satisfied that the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the Order made on the grounds advanced by the Defendants.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.