New South Wales Crime Commission v Angus Bruce Jackson

[2025] NSWSC 755

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	New South Wales Crime Commission v Angus Bruce Jackson [2025] NSWSC 755
Hearing dates:	11 July 2025
Date of orders:	11 July 2025
Decision date:	11 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Decision:	Notice of motion granted.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – interstate freezing notice – criminal assets – where order registered in New South Wales – leave to re-open – cancellation of registration of order – no question of principle
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 52A(a), 52F(1)(b)
Cases Cited:	N/A
Texts Cited:	N/A
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (ex parte)
File Number(s):	2020/00134187
Publication restriction:	N/A

JUDGMENT

1. On 5 May 2020, on the plaintiff’s application, this Court made an order pursuant to s 52A(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW) whereby an interstate freezing order, or freezing notice as it is described, was registered in this Court. The plaintiff, that is the New South Wales Crime Commission, now seeks by notice of motion to reopen that application and to cancel the registration. It supports the application by an affidavit affirmed by Warwick Oliver, who is a forensic accountant and currently an Associate Director of the Crime Commission.

2. The original registration concerned a freezing order made in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on the application of the Western Australian Police. The affidavit and its annexures establish that the Western Australian freezing notice was relatively recently cancelled by the Western Australian Police Force. The Western Australian Police have made a request to the New South Wales Crime Commission, the plaintiff in the present proceedings and the moving party for registration of that order back in May 2020, that the interstate registration be cancelled and to remove the associated caveat over the property which is detailed in the schedule to that registered interstate order.

3. I am satisfied that leave to reopen the proceedings should be granted, and I grant leave to do so, and that the orders pursuant to s 52F(1)(b) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act should be made. Accordingly, subject to my associate noting that leave is granted to file the various documents in court, those orders, in accordance with the draft orders helpfully provided by the plaintiff, are hereby made and should be entered forthwith.

**********

Decision last updated: 15 July 2025