Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Cranston & Ors (No. 19) [2022] NSWSC 1051

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Cranston & Ors (No. 19) [2022] NSWSC 1051 Hearing dates: 22 June 2022 Date of orders: 4 August 2022 Decision date: 04 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: The 57th defendant to pay forthwith the costs of the plaintiff in respect of the application filed by the 57th defendant on 20 September 2021 seeking an order under s 93 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). Catchwords: COSTS — party/party — costs orders in earlier proceedings — extension application — withdrawal of substantive application before hearing — costs payable forthwith Legislation Cited: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules NSW (2005) Category: Costs Parties: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Tepcorp Holdings Pty Ltd (57th Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D McLure SC with G O'Mahoney (Plaintiff) S Buchen SC with S Spinak (57th Defendant)

Solicitors: Criminal Assets Litigation, Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Murphy's Lawyers Inc (57th Defendant) File Number(s): 2017/146280 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. This is the judgment in respect of costs regarding an application filed by the 57th defendant, Tepcorp Holdings Pty Ltd (Tepcorp), seeking an order under s 93 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act) extending the time before which restrained property was forfeited under s 92 of the Act. 2. I am determining this costs issue (on the papers) because: 1. The costs of the application for an extension before Rothman J were reserved; and 2. Having obtained an extension, Tepcorp pursued an application seeking various forms of relief relating to property which had been restrained, including exclusion from restraint and exclusion from forfeiture (the substantive motion); and 3. The hearing of the substantive motion was listed before me on 22 June 2022; but 4. On that day, I made orders by consent dismissing the substantive motion (which had been filed on 17 September 2021) and ordered that Tepcorp pay the costs of the plaintiff of and in relation to the substantive motion forthwith. 1. During the discussion about the orders that should be made on 22 June 2022, the plaintiff (the Commissioner) raised the fact that costs had been reserved in respect of the extension application and that the Commissioner now sought costs and that the costs be payable forthwith. Tepcorp opposed such orders. 2. Whilst I did not end up hearing the substantive motion and nor did I hear the extension application, it seemed appropriate that the earlier question of costs which had been reserved be determined at this stage.