New South Wales Crime Commission v Raisa

In Raisa, the New South Wales Crime Commission sought leave to discontinue proceedings against Raisa under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay the defendant's costs and whether a supervening event had made the proceedings futile. The proceedings were instituted to recover unexplained wealth and assets from the defendant, but the defendant subsequently became insolvent, leaving no assets to attach and thus rendering the unexplained wealth order futile. The court considered whether the proceedings were properly instituted and whether a supervening event had occurred that would justify the discontinuance.

The court noted that the proceedings were instituted in good faith and were proper, given the information available at the time. However, the court also recognised that the defendant's subsequent insolvency and lack of assets meant that the proceedings had become futile. The court held that the supervening event of the defendant's insolvency made the proceedings futile, and that the plaintiff was not required to pay the defendant's costs. The court granted leave to discontinue the proceedings, noting that the proceedings had served their purpose in preventing the defendant from benefiting from their criminal activities.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles of futility and the discretion of the court to order costs in such circumstances. The court held that where proceedings are properly instituted but become futile due to a supervening event, the plaintiff should not be required to pay the defendant's costs. The court also noted that the proceedings had served their purpose in preventing the defendant from benefiting from their criminal activities, and that the defendant had no assets to attach. The court's decision was consistent with the principles of justice and fairness, and with the purpose of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was not required to pay the defendant's costs, and that leave to discontinue the proceedings was granted. The court noted that the proceedings had served their purpose in preventing the defendant from benefiting from their criminal activities, and that the defendant had no assets to attach. The court's decision was consistent with the principles of justice and fairness, and with the purpose of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The court's decision provides guidance for practitioners in similar cases, and highlights the importance of considering the purpose of the proceedings and the potential for supervening events when instituting proceedings under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.