Eric M. Wolfman

The Attorney-General sought forfeiture of insurance proceeds under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 following the killing of the insured by the beneficiary, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The court held that the insurance proceeds constituted property acquired as a result of unlawful activity within the meaning of the statute because they became payable as a consequence of the killing.

However, the court concluded that ordering forfeiture would be clearly not in the interests of justice.

Given the absence of moral blameworthiness associated with a finding of not criminally responsible, the lack of deterrent value, and the respondent’s personal circumstances, forfeiture would be manifestly harsh.

The application for forfeiture was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to enforce unpaid promissory notes and related guarantees against a corporate borrower and its principal.

The defendants relied solely on a limitation period defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, arguing the claims were statute-barred.

The court held that the promissory notes, which contained fixed maturity dates, were not demand obligations and the limitation period began running at maturity, rendering those claims statute-barred.

However, the guarantees constituted free‑standing demand obligations with no fixed time for payment, and because no demand had been made prior to the action the limitation period had not begun to run.

Summary judgment was therefore granted on the guarantees but dismissed with respect to the promissory notes.

The Attorney General sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act in respect of life insurance proceeds payable following the killing of the insured by the beneficiary, who had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the homicide.

The respondent opposed the order and sought payment of legal fees from the preserved funds and a declaration recognizing counsel’s solicitor’s lien based on a contingency fee agreement.

The court held that a verdict of not criminally responsible constitutes proof that the offence was committed for purposes of the Act, and that the insurance proceeds were sufficiently connected to unlawful activity to justify preservation.

Delay by the Crown in bringing the application did not meet the narrow “clearly not in the interests of justice” exception.

The preservation order was granted, while requests for payment of legal expenses and recognition of a solicitor’s lien were denied or deferred.