The Supreme Court has ruled that a statement of claim must be delivered in proceedings brought by plenary summons under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, rejecting an argument that the case could instead be treated procedurally like an ordinary application for an interlocutory injunction.
Mr Justice Geoghegan delivered judgment on January 30, 2002, in an appeal involving plaintiff F. McK. and defendants A.F. and J.F. He agreed with Mr Justice Fennelly that a statement of claim was required.
The dispute arose because no specific Rules of Court had been made for applications under the 1996 Act. Section 3 allows the High Court to make what the Act calls an “interlocutory order”, restraining dealings with property said to represent, directly or indirectly, the proceeds of crime. Such an order can remain in force indefinitely unless discharged.
Geoghegan J said the statutory label did not mean a section 3 order was interlocutory in the conventional procedural sense. He said the hearing of the section 3 application was, in practical terms, the trial of the central issue rather than merely a temporary stage pending a later trial.
The proceedings had been commenced by plenary summons. After entering an appearance, the defendant required delivery of a statement of claim under the Rules of the Superior Courts. Geoghegan J said that requirement applied and that he could see no basis on which the plaintiff could avoid it.
He also rejected reliance on an earlier tax case as supporting the plaintiff's position, saying it instead supported the application of ordinary court rules to statutory jurisdictions unless legislation indicated otherwise.
The judge would allow the appeal by declaring that a statement of claim must be delivered. However, because earlier High Court decisions had left room for genuine uncertainty, he would not strike out the proceedings and favoured setting a time limit for delivery.
He stressed that the ruling concerned proceedings brought by plenary summons and did not decide what procedural requirements might apply if different Rules of Court prescribed another form of proceeding.