The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by John Gilligan and members of his family over orders freezing and later transferring properties under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. It also refused their applications to set aside a Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2008.
In a judgment delivered on 1 February 2017, Ms Justice Dunne said the Gilligans had not shown the rare and exceptional circumstances required to reopen a final Supreme Court decision. Their applications, known as the “Greendale” motions, sought to set aside the 2008 judgment and argue that the operative property freezing order was invalid.
The dispute arose from Criminal Assets Bureau applications begun in 1996. The High Court made section 3 orders in December 1996 and again on 16 July 1997. The family argued that there had been no trial of whether the properties were proceeds of crime when the operative order was made, and that the earlier orders meant the court lacked jurisdiction to make the 1997 order.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments. It said the December orders were temporary measures made while proceedings were adjourned, and that the 1997 order was properly made after oral evidence. The court noted that John and Geraldine Gilligan were represented at that hearing and that the order was not opposed. The family could have challenged it by appeal or through later applications under the Act, the judgment said.
The court also rejected the claim that a procedural failure justified reopening its 2008 judgment. It said the exceptional jurisdiction to set aside a final order is not a route to reargue issues that could have been raised earlier. It found no breach of constitutional rights or other matter going to the root of the fair administration of justice.
The appeals also concerned High Court decisions by Mr Justice Feeney in 2011. He had rejected the family’s applications under section 3(3) to discharge or vary the freezing orders and granted section 4 disposal orders in favour of the State. The Supreme Court said the family had received a full hearing before Feeney J. on whether the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime; their case was rejected, and no error in his findings was argued on appeal.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed both the Greendale motions and the appeals. The result left the High Court disposal orders in place, including transfer of the properties to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The judgment noted that an order concerning a property at 1 Willsbrook Lawn, Lucan, provided for Treacy Gilligan to receive 20% of its net sale proceeds.