Section 52(3) of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld) exhaustively defines when a dealing in contravention of a restraining order is void; the common law doctrine of illegality does not operate concurrently to void non-intentional breaches. A bank that negligently fails to freeze an account subject to a restraining order, resulting in unauthorised withdrawals that increase secured indebtedness, retains its legally enforceable interest in the restrained property to the extent of the increased indebtedness. However, the strong dissent of Atkinson J raises the question whether a bank with knowledge of a restraining order that negligently permits breach should be entitled to claim an increased interest in restrained property.
The full text is available to signed-in members.