Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corporation [No 2]
Case
•
[2013] WASC 16
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Goldfinger Bullion Reserve Corporation [No 2] [2013] WASC 16
[2013] WASC 16
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to consider an application for the amendment of orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). The orders were made on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that a quantity of gold and silver bullion and a sum of money standing to the credit of an account with the Gold Corporation was the proceeds of a foreign indictable offence. The application sought to vary the orders so that the exchange rate applied by the Perth Mint in the conversion of United States dollars to Australian dollars would be altered, and that the Commonwealth pay the respondents the balance of $AUD73,597.26 between the amount already paid and the amount calculated under the specified rate.
The court considered whether it had the power to correct errors in judgments or orders which arise from an accidental slip or omission, and whether the orders were ambiguous concerning the exchange rate to be applied by the Perth Mint. The court found that while it had the power to correct errors, the orders were not ambiguous and the proposed correction would alter the substance of an order in a matter on which there might be a real difference of opinion. The court held that the orders were not orders in favour of one party but were bilateral, forfeiting to the Commonwealth the property restrained by the orders made in October 2010, while excluding from that forfeiture a specified amount.
The court dismissed the application to amend the orders, finding that the proposed correction was not necessary to avoid an injustice to the respondents and would alter the agreement made by the parties and recorded in the orders. The court also found that it was not appropriate to determine the questions raised in the respondents' alternative argument, particularly when the Perth Mint was not a party and had not been given the opportunity to be heard.
The final orders were that the application to amend the orders was dismissed.
The court considered whether it had the power to correct errors in judgments or orders which arise from an accidental slip or omission, and whether the orders were ambiguous concerning the exchange rate to be applied by the Perth Mint. The court found that while it had the power to correct errors, the orders were not ambiguous and the proposed correction would alter the substance of an order in a matter on which there might be a real difference of opinion. The court held that the orders were not orders in favour of one party but were bilateral, forfeiting to the Commonwealth the property restrained by the orders made in October 2010, while excluding from that forfeiture a specified amount.
The court dismissed the application to amend the orders, finding that the proposed correction was not necessary to avoid an injustice to the respondents and would alter the agreement made by the parties and recorded in the orders. The court also found that it was not appropriate to determine the questions raised in the respondents' alternative argument, particularly when the Perth Mint was not a party and had not been given the opportunity to be heard.
The final orders were that the application to amend the orders was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
-
Contract Formation
-
Specific Performance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
[2005] HCA 12
Burrell v The Queen
[2008] HCA 34
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
[2005] HCA 12