Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Crime Commission v Lee [2014] NSWSC 278 Hearing dates: 14 March 2014 Decision date: 18 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Consent orders made. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 - consent orders Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Jason Lee (also known as Do Young Lee) (First Defendant) Elizabeth Park (Second Defendant) J & Lee Property Investment Group Pty Limited (Third Defendant) Seong Won Lee (Fourth Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Ms E Goh New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2010/118966 Publication restriction: None JUDGMENT 1These proceedings were commenced by summons filed in May 2010. On 13 May 2010, Buddin J made ex parte orders pursuant to s 10A and other provisions of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) restraining all of the interests in property of the first defendant Jason Lee being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that he had engaged in serious crime related activity. 2In June 2012 orders were sought under s 27 of the Act against the fourth defendant, Seong Won lee. On 19 June, Hidden J made an order s 10A restraining all of the interests in property of the fourth defendant. 3Consent orders were made in September 2012 under s 10B, for the reasonable legal expenses of the two defendants, in relation to a number of specified matters. 4A further consent order was made in June 2013 under s 10B in relation to the defendants' reasonable legal expenses for an application to the High Court for special leave to appeal in relation to their conviction for drug supply and firearm offences. 5A further consent order under s 10B was made in November 2013 in respect of their reasonable legal expenses incurred in respect of these proceedings, that order was varied by consent in December 2013. 6A further consent order was made in January 2014 under s 10B in relation to the defendants' reasonable legal expenses for the High Court appeal. 7On 14 March 2014, the parties asked the Court to make further consent orders varying these earlier consent orders, by inserting in schedule two to the orders, two further properties located at Chifley and Waterloo. That was explained for the plaintiff to reflect that these properties have now been sold, realizing proceeds which are available for payment of legal expenses still outstanding in relation to the matters the subject to the earlier consent orders. 8Having considered the circumstances in which the parties seek the making of the proposed further consent order and the terms of that order I am satisfied that justice dictates that the Court's powers be exercised to make orders in the terms agreed. 9For those reasons, I made orders in terms of the consent orders filed on 14 March 2014. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 March 2014