New South Wales Crime Commission v Lee

The case of New South Wales Crime Commission v Lee involved the New South Wales Crime Commission (the plaintiff) and Lee (the defendant). The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff could lodge a caveat over the defendant’s property under section 15(3) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, given that the plaintiff did not have a right to lodge a caveat under section 74F of the Real Property Act 1900. Additionally, the court considered the effect of a section 10A restraining order and the interaction between the two Acts.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff could lodge a caveat when it had no legal or equitable interest in the property under the Real Property Act. The court also examined whether the plaintiff’s right to lodge a caveat under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act was constrained by the provisions of the Real Property Act, particularly in light of the indefeasible title principle. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether a section 10A restraining order could be used to challenge a caveat and whether the assets forfeiture order under section 22 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act was compatible with the indefeasible title under the Real Property Act.

The court found that the Criminal Assets Recovery Act allows the plaintiff to lodge a caveat even if it does not have a legal or equitable interest in the property under the Real Property Act. The court held that the Real Property Act is not a code as to caveats under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act and that a caveat may be challenged under section 10C of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act, not section 74J of the Real Property Act. The court also determined that an assets forfeiture order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act is incompatible with the indefeasible title under the Real Property Act, but the purpose of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act must be given effect. Consequently, the court ordered that the caveat be extended and granted the plaintiff’s application under section 12 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. The court also ordered that costs be paid by the defendant.