The High Court allowed an appeal against a Circuit Court decision refusing to dismiss a cash forfeiture application. It held that the application was not made within the statutory time limit because a necessary respondent was served after the cash detention order expired.
The case concerned about €210,000 in cash seized from Gerard Alphonsus Humphreys at Shannon Airport on 17 May 2010. The money was found in FedEx parcels he was carrying after arriving from the Netherlands. The judgment says it was common case that Anona International Traders Limited owned the cash. Humphreys told Customs and Excise he was transporting it on behalf of Pacnet Services (Ireland) Limited to a related company in Canada, for deposit into an Anona client account.
The District Court authorised continued detention through a sequence of orders. The last order, made on 25 April 2012, was due to expire on 18 May. The Director of Public Prosecutions filed an undated originating notice of motion seeking forfeiture on 27 April and listed it in the Circuit Court on 1 May. The DPP sought to serve several parties, including Robert Paul Davis, who was then outside Ireland. Davis was served at a new Isle of Man address on 31 May, after the detention order had expired.
The DPP argued that filing the motion within the detention period was sufficient. Davis and other respondents argued that a motion required to be made on notice was not made until notice had been served on all necessary parties. They also raised defects in service. The High Court said those service criticisms, on their own, would at most have entitled Davis to an adjournment to avoid prejudice.
Justice Iseult O’Malley concluded that the principles in Supreme Court decisions required service on all necessary parties within the statutory period. The court was satisfied Davis was a proper respondent and noted that he had not evaded service: he had remained in contact with the Customs officer and supplied his new address. The court also said the Circuit Court’s rules and later decisions had not changed that requirement.
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal. The judgment does not itself make a forfeiture order or determine the ultimate ownership or criminal origin of the cash; it resolves the time-limit issue concerning the Circuit Court application.