Official Assignee v Milosevic

[2025] NZHC 2835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2018-463-000081

[2025] NZHC 2835

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

Applicant

AND

TE OHORERE “LUCKY BOY” MILOSEVIC

First Respondent

TARALEE MURRAY

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S M Earl and J T Lowyim for Applicant Respondents Self-represented
Date:	29 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 September 2025 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

………………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v MILOSEVIC [2025] NZHC 2835 [29 September 2025]

[1]    Mr Milosevic and Ms Murray (together the applicants) apply for leave to appeal my decision of 22 August 2025.1 In the decision, I declined to review the Registrar’s decision to reject documents for filing. Those documents sought to halt the auction of a property situated at Kawerau (the property) that is now vested in the Official Assignee.

[2]    This followed the forfeiture of the property pursuant to an asset forfeiture order made by Gordon J in July 2022 under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA), which vested the property in the Official Assignee. The order was sealed on 22 July 2022 and served on Mr Milosevic via his counsel on 3 August 2022. There was no appeal against that decision.

[3]The Official Assignee opposes the application.

[4]    Leave to appeal my decision to the Court of Appeal is required  under  section 56(3) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.2 The leave requirement has been described as “a filtering mechanism” to prevent unmeritorious or insignificant appeals.3 There is a high threshold for the grant of leave.4 The ultimate question is whether the interests of justice are served by granting leave.5

[5]    In my view, the interests of justice are not served by the grant of leave. The application that is the subject of the Registrar’s decision sought an injunction of an auction that took place on 13 August 2025. The auction has since passed and the property remains unsold. Accordingly, the application to which the Registrar’s decision relates is now moot.

[6]    In any event, the applicants have not identified any arguable error of law or fact. The basis for my previous decision was that Mr Milosevic and Ms Murray now have no interest in the property that is the subject of their prospective application. The property is wholly vested in the Official Assignee as a result of the assets forfeiture

1      Official Assignee v Milosevic HC Rotorua CIV-2018-463-81, minute of 22 August 2025.

2      Memelink v Collins & May Law [2024] NZHC 2200 at [12]; Re Watson (Retired Blacksmith dec’d)

[2024] NZHC 2996 at [4].

3      Auto Net v Tyler [2021] NZHC 542 at [15].

4      Ngai Te Hapu Inc v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2018] NZCA 291 at [12].

5      Greendrake v District Court of New Zealand [2020] NZCA 122 at [6].

order. In the absence of any appeal against the forfeiture order, there was nothing in the proceeding for the applicants to pursue and nothing on which a stay or injunction could be founded. Moreover, the documents sought to be filed also did not comply with the procedure for an injunction application.6

[7]    The matters raised by the applicants appear to focus on the conduct of the Police in the issuing of trespass orders made, as well as issues of “sovereignty”. These points do not engage with issues that are judiciable in the application they sought to file.

[8]    The application also focusses on the Registrar’s reference to the applicants’ failure to pay filing fees, citing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The need to pay filing fees was a matter referred to in my decision but was peripheral to the decision. In any event, the point has no merit. The Criminal Procedure Act does not apply to a civil application under the CPRA.

[9]    The applicants also cite r 1.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 to the effect that non-compliance with the Rules does not nullify a proceeding. This provision does not bite on the prior issue of whether irregular documents should be accepted for filing. Nor does it address the fact that the present proceeding is no longer live.

[10]I decline the application for leave.

Anderson J

6      See High Court Rules, 2016, pt 7, subpt 3.