STANOEVSKI -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASC 299

[2026] WASC 299 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA IN CHAMBERS CITATION : STANOEVSKI -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASC 299 CORAM : STRK J HEARD : 4-5 APRIL 2023 DELIVERED : 28 JULY 2026 FILE NO/S : CPCA 80 of 2005 BETWEEN : ZORAN STANOEVSKI First Plaintiff DIMCHE NIKOLOSKI Second Plaintiff PAUL STANOEVSKI Third Plaintiff VOJSLAV STANOEVSKI Fourth Plaintiff AND THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Defendant Catchwords: Criminal property confiscation - Freezing notice - Property frozen included real property, cash and moneys held in various bank accounts - Objections made to freezing notice - First plaintiff declared drug trafficker upon conviction - -- 1 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 Page 2 Whether the frozen property was owned by the first plaintiff - Equitable interests claimed with respect to real property - Presumed resulting trust - Equitable lien - Common intention constructive trust - Application on behalf of the State of Western Australia to dismiss the objections to the confiscation of frozen property - Application for declaration that frozen property had been confiscated Legislation: Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) Result: Declaration of confiscation made, objections are without utility and therefore dismissed Category: B Representation: Counsel: First Plaintiff : In Person Second Plaintiff : In Person Third Plaintiff : In Person Fourth Plaintiff : T Kean Defendant : T Staples Solicitors: First Plaintiff : In Person Second Plaintiff : In Person Third Plaintiff : In Person Fourth Plaintiff : Kean Legal Barristers and Solicitors Defendant : The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) -- 2 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 Page 3 Cases referred to in decision: Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685 Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 Astill v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASC 119 Atkinson v Festic (1990) DFC 95-089 Atkinson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 218 Austin v Keele (1987) 10 NSWLR 283 Bamess v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 259 Barker v The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2011] WASC 299 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 2 NSWLR 406 Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137 Bennett & Co (a firm) v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2005] WASCA 141; (2005) 31 WAR 212 Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] HCA 34; (2022) 275 CLR 37 Brennan v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 31 Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317 Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242 Campana v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASC 230 Campos v Lopes [2021] QSC 42 Carruthers v Manning [2001] NSWSC 1130 Centurion Trust Company Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2010] WASCA 133 Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley [1956] HCA 28; (1956) 95 CLR 353 Coad v Wellness Pursuit Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2009] WASCA 68; (2009) 40 WAR 53 Combe v Lord Swaythling [1947] Ch 625 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 52 Davies v Littlejohn [1923] HCA 64; (1923) 34 CLR 174 Dawson v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 113 Drever v Drever [1936] ALJ 207 Flash Lighting Company Ltd v Australia Kunqian International Energy Co Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] VSC 711 Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 Glynn v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1977] 2 NSWLR 673 Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343 Hamed v Elddin [2016] NSWCA 9 Hendricks v The State of Western Australia [2002] WASC 86 Hewett v Court [1983] HCA 7; (1983) 149 CLR 639 -- 3 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 Page 4 Kauter v Hilton [1953] HCA 95; (1953) 90 CLR 86 Khankhaeng v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASC 361 Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Limited [2015] HCA 6; (2015) 255 CLR 62 Lambert v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 145 Ly v The State of Western Australia [2015] WADC 132 Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329 (1808) 33 ER 778 Marchese v Marchese [2021] WASC 385 McRobb v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASC 163 Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) CLR 583 Napier v Public Trustee (Western Australia) (1980) 32 ALR 153 Nelson v Nelson [1995] HCA 25; (1995) 184 CLR 538 Ong Lottwo Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2013] SASCFC 57; (2013) 116 SASR 280 Parsons v McBain [2001] FCA 376 (2001) 109 FCR 120 Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 Porter v Bonarrigo [2009] VSC 500 Ranford v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 45 Re Armstrong, deceased [1960] VR 202 Re Sabri; Ex parte Brien v Sabri (1996) 21 Fam LR 213 Re Smith; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia [No 3] [2004] WASC 157 Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HLC 672; (1864) 11 ER 1187 Russell v Scott [1936] HCA 34 (1936) 55 CLR 440 Secretary, Department of Social Security v Agnew [2000] FCA 59; (2000) 96 FCR 357 Shephard v Cartwright [1954] UKHL 2; [1955] AC 431 Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42 Sivritas v Sivritas (2008) 23 VR 349 Smith v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASC 189 Stavrianakos v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASC 64 Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] HCA 15; (2014) 252 CLR 307 Stowe v Stowe (1995) 15 WAR 363 Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASC 273 Trustees of Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278 Urbano v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 147 Whittle v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASC 244 Wilms v Wilms [2016] WASC 396 Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASC 333 Zekry v Zekry [2020] VSCA 336 -- 4 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 Page 5 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 Background ................................................................................................................................. 6 The orders sought by the plaintiffs ........................................................................................... 11 Orders sought by Zoran ........................................................................................................ 11 Orders sought by Dimche ..................................................................................................... 12 Orders sought by Paul .......................................................................................................... 12 Orders sought by Vojslav ..................................................................................................... 13 Orders and declaration sought by the State .............................................................................. 14 Statutory framework ................................................................................................................. 17 The evidence ............................................................................................................................. 26 The State's evidence ............................................................................................................. 26 The plaintiffs' evidence......................................................................................................... 34 Determination ........................................................................................................................... 64 Item 1 - Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only (formerly item 12 - Commonwealth Bank account 06 6117 5009 3309)............................. 66 Item 3 - The Balcatta property .............................................................................................. 74 Item 5 - Cash in the sum of $3,500..................................................................................... 108 Item 6 - Cash in the sum of $2,600..................................................................................... 112 Item 7 - Cash in the sum of $950........................................................................................ 113 Item 8 - Cash in the sum of $55.......................................................................................... 114 Item 10 - Cash in the sum of $50........................................................................................ 115 Item 13 - Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 ....................................................... 116 Item 15 - Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 ....................................................... 117 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 118 -- 5 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 6 STRK J: Introduction 1 Dimche Nikoloski, Paul Stanoevski, and Vojslav Stanoevski were joined as plaintiffs to a proceeding commenced by Zoran Stanoevski by originating summons pursuant to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA), by which (among other things) objection was taken to the confiscation of property by the State of Western Australia based on freezing notice AISFN050161 or otherwise; and it was sought that freezing notice AISFN050161 be set aside.1 The State of Western Australia was a party to that proceeding and the named defendant. 2 By a summons filed in that proceeding,2 the State of Western Australia applied for an order that the objections to freezing notice AISFN050161 made by Zoran Stanoevski, Dimche Nikoloski and Paul Stanoevski be dismissed, and for a declaration to be made pursuant to s 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, that property the subject of the freezing notice had been confiscated pursuant to s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. 3 The Court ordered that the originating summons and the summons filed in that proceeding on behalf of the State be listed together for hearing. These are my reasons for decision in respect of the same. Background 4 In these reasons I refer to freezing notice AISFN050161 as the freezing notice. 5 The plaintiffs are related and three of the four plaintiffs share the same surname. For convenience and to avoid confusion, in these reasons when I refer to a particular plaintiff or a member of their extended family I will refer to that person by their first name. No disrespect is intended. 6 Zoran is father to Paul and the son of Vojslav. Zoran is Dimche's cousin through Zoran's mother, the late Ordena Stanoevska. 7 On 20 December 2005 Zoran was charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), namely, one count of supplying a 1 Originating summons filed on 23 December 2005. Dimche Nikoloski and Paul Stanoevski were joined as the second and third plaintiffs respectively by an order made by consent on 27 February 2006. Vojslav Stanoevski was joined as the fourth plaintiff by an order made by consent on 23 December 2008. 2 Defendant's summons filed on 11 August 2008. -- 6 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 7 prohibited drug and two counts of selling it to another, which offences were alleged to have taken place on 12, 16 and 18 December 2005. If convicted of those offences he was liable to be declared a drug trafficker pursuant to s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 8 On 21 December 2005, on the basis of the charges against Zoran and pursuant to s 34(3) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, a justice of the peace issued the freezing notice in respect of certain property said to be owned or effectively controlled by Zoran on the basis that Zoran had been charged with an offence. The Court's record reveals that a copy of the freezing notice was filed on 22 December 2005. 9 The property specified in the freezing notice included the land commonly known as 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta (the Balcatta property), together with cash seized during a search undertaken on 20 December 2005, and money held in various bank accounts. Schedule 2 of the freezing notice described the property frozen under the freezing notice and prescribed an estimated value of the property as follows:3 No. Description of Property Estimated Value of the Property 1 All or any property that is owned and/or effectively controlled by the Person (Zoran Stanoevski) (other than property referred to in Schedule 4) N/A 2 All property acquired by the Person (Zoran Stanoevski) or by another person at the request or direction of the Person after this Freezing Notice is made (other than the property referred to in Schedule 4) N/A 3 The Land at Lot 180 on Diagram 65821 in Certificate of Title Volume 1658 Folio 953, commonly known as 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta. $300,000 4 Cash in Australian Currency. $2,210 5 Cash in Australian Currency. $3,500 6 Cash in Australian Currency. $2,600 7 Cash in Australian Currency. $950 8 Cash in Australian Currency. $55 9 Cash in Australian Currency. $300 10 Cash in Australian Currency. $50 11 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth $3,500 3 The information reproduced is sourced from sch 2 of the freezing notice. It is not intended to be a complete reproduction of sch 2. -- 7 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 8 No. Description of Property Estimated Value of the Property Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 and any and all interest payable on such money. 12 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and any and all interest payable on such money. $20,500 13 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI trading as Nation Security in Westpac business cheque account number 036-072 13-7836 and any and all interest payable on such money. $3,600 14 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Westpac Investment loan account number 037-134 40- 0041 and any and all interest payable on such money. -$156,500 15 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Westpac deposit account 736-053 52-8935 and any and all interest payable on such money. $71,500 16 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank term deposit account 6117 500 91477 and any and all interest payable on such money. $15,500 17 Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank account 6117 1013 2414 and any and all interest payable on such money. $1.00 10 Zoran is the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property. A mortgage in favour of Westpac Banking Corporation was registered on 9 April 2003.4 11 Upon receipt of the freezing notice, Zoran made a statutory declaration on 22 December 2005 as required by s 37 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. Among other things, Zoran declared that:5 (a) Paul and Westpac may be interested parties with respect to items 3, 14 and 15 of the freezing notice; (b) Paul is an interested party with respect to items 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the freezing notice; (c) Dimche is an interested party with respect to items 5 and 7 of the freezing notice; and 4 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH11. 5 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. -- 8 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 9 (d) to the best of his information and belief at that time, there was no one with an interest in items 8, 10 and 13 of the freezing notice. 12 In the glossary to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, 'interested party', in relation to frozen property, means a person who has an interest in the property that would enable the person to succeed on an objection to the confiscation of the property. 13 On 23 December 2005 Zoran filed a notice of objection to the confiscation of frozen property pursuant to s 79 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act and commenced this proceeding by originating summons (known as CPCA 80 of 2005). Among other things, by this proceeding Zoran sought that the freezing notice be set aside in relation to property owned by him, and that his property be returned. 14 On 13 January 2006 Westpac filed a notice of objection to the confiscation of frozen property pursuant to s 79 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act and commenced a proceeding by originating summons (known as CPCA 4 of 2006). Westpac sought that the freezing notice be set aside under s 84(2) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to the extent that it purported to freeze Westpac's right and interest as mortgagee with respect to the Balcatta property, and in respect of various accounts held by Zoran with Westpac. 15 On 24 January 2006 Dimche and Paul filed notices of objection to the confiscation of frozen property pursuant to s 79 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. By orders made on 27 February 2006, among other things, the originating summons filed by Zoran was amended to join Dimche and Paul to the proceeding as the second and third plaintiffs, respectively. 16 On 3 February 2006 Paul made a statutory declaration and, among other things, declared that he is an interested party in respect of items 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the freezing notice; and that Dimche may be an interested party in respect of items 5 and 7.6 17 On 3 February 2006 Dimche made a statutory declaration and among other things, declared that he is an interested party in respect of 6 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH5. -- 9 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 10 items 5 and 7 of the freezing notice; and that Paul may be an interested party in respect of items 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.7 18 On 23 October 2007, after a trial in the District Court, Zoran was convicted under s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act of one count of supplying a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) and two counts of selling it to another.8 On 19 February 2008 Zoran was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.9 19 On 4 June 2008, by the consent of Westpac and the State, the objection filed by Westpac in the proceeding known as CPCA 4 of 2006 was dismissed with no order as to costs. 20 By a summons filed in the proceeding commenced by Zoran by originating summons, on 11 August 2008 the State applied for an order that the (then named) plaintiffs' objections to the freezing notice be dismissed and for a declaration, pursuant to s 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, that property the subject of the freezing notice has been confiscated pursuant to s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. 21 While the summons was listed for hearing on 18 September 2008, the hearing of the same was adjourned without fixing a date, and programming orders were made. 22 On 23 December 2008 it was ordered that Vojslav be joined as the fourth plaintiff to the proceeding. He had made a claim to the Balcatta property. 23 Save for the four plaintiffs to this proceeding (and Westpac whose claim was by consent dismissed), no other person or entity filed an objection to the freezing notice. 24 From time to time during the course of the proceeding further programming orders were made, and the time for compliance with the same extended. The proceeding was not prosecuted, and no action was taken by any party from July 2012 to August 2021. There is no indication on the Court record as to why this was the case. The hearing was listed and proceeded in April 2023. 7 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH6. 8 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 12, JCH10. 9 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 12, JCH9. -- 10 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 11 The orders sought by the plaintiffs 25 At the hearing, Zoran, Dimche and Paul appeared in person without legal representation, whereas Vojslav was legally represented and was assisted by a Macedonian language translator. Orders sought by Zoran 26 In addition to the affidavit made by Zoran which stood as his evidence in chief, Zoran filed an outline of submissions in advance of the hearing upon which he relied,10 and made supplementary submissions at the conclusion of the hearing.11 In the filed outline of submissions, Zoran recorded the findings/orders that he sought be made. They were as follows:12 (a) That the fourth plaintiff effectively controlled the Property at all relevant times; and (b) That the fourth plaintiff has been the beneficial owner of the Property at all relevant times; and (c) That the Freezing Notice should be set aside; and (d) That the Property (and monetary included) should be released back to the second, third and fourth plaintiffs. and (e) That the money in the Commonwealth Bank be released to my son Paul Stanoevski who is the third plaintiff. 27 I understood the reference to 'the Property' at paragraphs (a) and (b) above to be a reference to the Balcatta property. 10 First plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022; ts 75 (4 April 2023). 11 ts 148 - 151 (5 April 2023). 12 First plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 6. -- 11 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 12 Orders sought by Dimche 28 In addition to affidavits made by Dimche which stood as his evidence in chief, Dimche filed an outline of submissions in advance of the hearing.13 29 Dimche recorded in that outline by way of background 'the timeline of events involving the first and second plaintiffs' in the following terms:14 (a) On or about September 2002, I entrusted the first plaintiff with my share of the profit from the sale of a jointly owned property located at 2 Eric Street MIDLAND WA. My share was approximately 50% of $44,078.30 ($$22,039.15). (b) On or about February 2005 I witnessed my Auntie instructing Zoran Stanoevski to hold a total of $20,000 in Trust for Paul Stanoevski. (c) On or about December 2005, I lent the first plaintiff $3,500 to help pay for a tombstone for his mother who had passed away. (d) On or about 2006, I lodged a Caveat on the first Plaintiffs property to protect my money that was entrusted to him in 2002 and 2005 as mentioned above. 30 In that outline Dimche also recorded the findings/orders that he submitted ought be made. They were as follows:15 (a) That the Freezing Notice should be set aside; and (b) That the Property (Money secured by Caveat) should be released back to the second plaintiff. Orders sought by Paul 31 In addition to affidavits made by Paul which stood as his evidence in chief, Paul filed an outline of submissions in advance of the hearing.16 13 Second plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022; ts 88 (4 April 2023); ts 110 (5 April 2023). 14 Second plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 2. 15 Second plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 3. 16 Third plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022; ts 96 (4 April 2023). -- 12 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 13 32 Paul recorded in that outline by way of background 'the timeline of events involving the first and third plaintiffs' in the following terms:17 (a) On or about the 15th February 2005, The First Plaintiff deposited $20,500 on behalf of the 3rd Plaintiff into a Commonwealth Bank Account. This money was given to The First Plaintiff to hold on behalf of The Third Plaintiff by The Grandmother of the Third Plaintiff who passed away later that same year. … 5. On or about the 15th February 2005, My father deposited $20,500 on my behalf into a Commonwealth Bank Account. I was a minor at the time. This money was given to my father to hold for me by my Grandmother who passed away later that same year. 33 In the outline Paul also recorded the findings/orders that he submitted ought be made. They were as follows:18 (a) That the third plaintiff was the beneficial owner of the Property at all relevant times; and (b) That the Freezing Notice should be set aside; and (c) That the Property (Money in the bank account) should be released back to the third plaintiff. Orders sought by Vojslav 34 In addition to the affidavit made by Vojslav which stood as his evidence in chief, Vojslav filed an outline of submissions in advance of the hearing.19 Vojslav's interest in the proceeding was limited to the Balcatta property. In the outline of submissions, the findings/orders that counsel for Vojslav submitted ought be made were outlined as follows:20 17 Third plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, pars 2 and 5. 18 Third plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 6. 19 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022. 20 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 38. -- 13 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 14 (a) That the fourth plaintiff effectively controlled the [Balcatta property] at all relevant times; and (b) That the fourth plaintiff has the beneficial owner of the [Balcatta property] at all relevant times; and (c) That the Freezing Notice should be set aside and the [Balcatta property] be released back to the first plaintiff; or In the alternative, (d) That the [Balcatta property] confiscated be released back to the fourth plaintiff. Orders and declaration sought by the State 35 On behalf of the State, outlines of submissions were filed in June 2008, 30 July 2021, and 22 and 23 March 2022. They were all relied upon by the State.21 36 The State's position was that once Zoran was declared to be a drug trafficker, the freezing notice ceased to have any force, and as the property the subject of the freezing notice was no longer frozen, it was confiscated.22 37 The State sought that the remaining objections be dismissed, and a declaration that the following property that Zoran owned or effectively controlled at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act on 19 February 2008, and all property that he gave away at any time before the drug trafficker declaration was made, had been confiscated to the State, namely:23 (a) Zoran's interest in the Balcatta property (which I understood to be item 3 of the freezing notice); (b) cash in the sum of AUD $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005; (c) moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in the following accounts as at 19 February 2008, together with any interest thereon: 21 ts 45 (4 April 2023). 22 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 3, citing Atkinson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 218 [25] and McRobb v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASC 163 [30]. 23 Minute of proposed order and declaration filed on behalf of the defendant on 29 March 2023, proposed order 2. -- 14 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 15 (i) Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 (which I understood to be item 12 of freezing notice);24 (ii) Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 (which I understood to be item 13 of the freezing notice); and (iii) Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 (which I understood to be item 15 of the freezing notice); (d) moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020 (which I understood to be item 1 of the freezing notice). 38 As to the cash in the total sum of $4,155 said to have been confiscated, it was the State's position that: (a) as to item 5 of the freezing notice, of the $3,500 frozen a declaration of confiscation was sought for $2,700 only as $800 was controlled purchase money; and (b) as to item 6, of the $2,600 frozen a declaration of confiscation was sought for $400 only as $2,200 was controlled purchase money.25 39 That is, the State sought a declaration that the following amounts had been confiscated, which together was cash in the sum of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005:26 CASH AMOUNT SOUGHT BY THE STATE Item 5 ($3,500) - $800 (Controlled Purchase Money), $2,700 to confiscate Item 6 ($2,600) - $2,200 (Controlled Purchase Money), $400 to confiscate Item 7 ($950) - $950 to confiscate Item 8 [(]$55) - $55 to confiscate Item 10 ($50) - $50 to confiscate 24 As discussed at [40] below, this item was not pressed at the hearing of the application for the reasons there described. See also ts 47 (4 April 2023), and the defendant's schedule relating to the minute of proposed orders and declaration filed on 6 April 2023, par 2(d). 25 Defendant's schedule relating to the minute of proposed orders and declaration filed on 6 April 2023, par 2(b). 26 MFI1 (Defendant's aide memoire as to cash amounts which was said to have been confiscated by the State). -- 15 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 16 Total for confiscation: $4,155.00 40 As to the money standing to Zoran's credit in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020 (item 1 of the freezing notice), the State explained that the money originated from Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309, which had been frozen and was recorded as item 12 in the freezing notice. It was the State's position that after its summons for a declaration of confiscation was filed, Zoran unlawfully closed Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and deposited the funds from that account via cheque into Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544, an account held in his sole name. Therefore, the State confirmed that a declaration of confiscation was no longer sought regarding the Commonwealth Bank account that was described in item 12 of the freezing notice, as that account had been closed.27 41 At the hearing, counsel for the State also explained that it did not seek a declaration in relation to all of the property that had been frozen and listed in sch 2 of the freezing notice, as over time there had been part cancellations of the freezing notice.28 After comparing the State's minute of proposed orders with sch 2 of the freezing notice, I understood the State not to press for declarations with respect to the property that had been identified in sch 2 as items 4, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 17. 42 In light of the statutory framework (which is summarised below), it was the State's position that the key issue for determination in this matter was whether the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property the subject of the State's application for a declaration of confiscation was owned, effectively controlled or given away at any time by Zoran at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker.29 43 Further, counsel for the State made plain that the State did not allege that any of the property caught within the ambit of the freezing notice was effectively controlled or given away by Zoran. Rather, it was the State's position that the property was owned by Zoran 27 ts 47 (4 April 2023); defendant's schedule relating to the minute of proposed orders and declaration filed on 6 April 2023, par 2(d). 28 ts 47 (4 April 2023). 29 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 4. -- 16 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 17 (referring to the meaning of 'owner' as defined in the glossary of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act).30 Statutory framework 44 The Criminal Property Confiscation Act is an Act which among other things provides for the confiscation in certain circumstances of property acquired as a result of criminal activity and property used for criminal activity, the confiscation of other property, and for connected purposes.31 Property is confiscable for the purposes of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act if the property is: (a) owned or effectively controlled, or has at any time been given away, by a person who has unexplained wealth; or (b) owned or effectively controlled, or has at any time been given away, by a person who has acquired a criminal benefit; or (c) crime-used property; or (d) crime-derived property; or (e) owned or effectively controlled, or has at any time been given away, by a declared drug trafficker.32 45 Part 4 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerns preventing dealings in confiscable property. Prior to a person being declared a drug trafficker, a freezing notice may have been issued, or a freezing order made, in relation to property. A freezing notice or order may be made on a number of prescribed grounds, including that the person could be declared to be a drug trafficker.33 46 Part 3 div 4 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerns the recovery of confiscable property, and provides for the making of declarations of confiscation. In this case, the State applied for a declaration pursuant to s 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act that property the subject of the freezing notice has been confiscated pursuant to s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. Section 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act provides as follows: 30 ts 46, 51 (4 April 2023). 31 Criminal Property Confiscation Act, long title. 32 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 142. 33 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 34(3)(b), s 43(5)(b). -- 17 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 18 30. Declarations of confiscation, applying for and making (1) The DPP or the CCC may apply to the court for a declaration that property has been confiscated. (2) On considering an application, if the court finds that the property described in the application has been confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8, the court must make a declaration to that effect. 47 As to the confiscation, the State relied upon s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, which provides as follows: 8. Declared drug trafficker, certain property of confiscated (1) When a person is declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 as a result of being convicted of a confiscation offence that was committed after the commencement of this Act, the following property is confiscated — (a) all the property that the person owns or effectively controls at the time the declaration is made; (b) all property that the person gave away at any time before the declaration was made, whether the gift was made before or after the commencement of this Act. 48 The glossary at the end of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act defines or affects the meaning of some of the words and expressions used in the Act.34 Among other things, the glossary provides: (a) 'owner', in relation to property, means a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property; (b) 'effective control', in relation to property, has the definition given in s 156 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act; and (c) 'give', in relation to property, includes transfer for consideration that is significantly less than the greater of: (i) the market value of the property at the time of transfer; and (ii) the consideration paid by the transferee. 34 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 3(1). -- 18 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 19 49 Part 12 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerns the interpretation of terms used in that Act, and s 156 (a section within that part) concerns the interpretation of the term 'effective control'. Section 156 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act provides as follows: 156. Term used: effective control (in relation to property) (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has effective control of property if the person does not have the legal estate in the property, but the property is directly or indirectly subject to the control of the person, or is held for the ultimate benefit of the person. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), when determining whether a person has effective control of any property, the following matters may be taken into account — (a) any shareholdings in, debentures over or directorships of any corporation that has a direct or indirect interest in the property; (b) any trust that has a relationship to the property; (c) family, domestic and business relationships between persons having an interest in the property; (d) family, domestic and business relationships between persons having an interest in or in a corporation that has a direct or indirect interest in the property; (e) family, domestic and business relationships between persons having an interest in a trust that has a relationship to the property; (f) any other relevant matters. 50 Section 10(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act provides as follows: 10. Other property, time and effect of confiscation of under s. 6, 7 or 8 (1) Property (except registrable real property) that is confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8 vests absolutely in the State when the section takes effect in relation to the property. -- 19 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 20 51 Under s 9 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, registrable real property does not vest absolutely in the State unless and until the Court makes a declaration under s 30 that the property has been confiscated; and a memorial of the making of the declaration is registered under s 113(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. 52 In this proceeding, the State had to prove the following under s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act: (1) Zoran had been declared to be a drug trafficker pursuant to s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. (2) The declaration was as a result of being convicted of a 'confiscation offence', which term is defined in pt 12 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act at s 141(1), and which includes an offence against a law in force anywhere in Australia that is punishable by imprisonment for two years or more: Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 141(1)(a). (3) The offence was committed after the commencement of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, that is, after 1 January 2001. (4) The subject property was owned or effectively controlled by Zoran. (As is noted above, the term 'owner' is defined in the Criminal Property Confiscation Act to mean, in relation to property, a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property.) (5) The subject property was so owned or effectively controlled at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. 53 As to the evidence that may be used in confiscation proceedings, the Criminal Property Confiscation Act provides that if a person has been convicted of a relevant confiscation offence, regard may be had to material before a court in any proceedings for the offence or sentencing.35 54 It was the State's position that if the five matters outlined above at [52] were proven, then by operation of s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, the subject property was confiscated at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made, and, by s 10(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, the property (except registrable real 35 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 107. -- 20 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 21 property) vested absolutely in the State at that time. Further, given the mandatory terms of s 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, the Court would be compelled to make a confiscation declaration confirming that the property had been so confiscated under s 8(1).36 55 As was observed by Roberts-Smith J in Re Smith; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia [No 3] at [15] to [16]: The Court has a very limited judicial discretion in relation to applications for declarations that frozen property has been confiscated under the Act. Nonetheless, the determination of the matters set out in the Confiscation Act for the making of a declaration under s 30 does still require the exercise of a judicial discretion. However, the other aspect of that is that once the Court has been satisfied the statutory requirements have been met, the Court must make a declaration. Given the draconian nature of the legislation, strict compliance with its requirements is required. The purpose, clearly, is to ensure a potential interested party knows they are required to file a statutory declaration and has the opportunity to file a notice of objection. 56 Part 6 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerns objections to confiscation, and s 79 provides that a person may file an objection to the confiscation of frozen property. The term 'objection' is defined in the glossary to mean an objection filed under s 79 to the confiscation of property. The State is a party to proceedings on an objection.37 57 Section 81 provides that on hearing an objection to the confiscation of frozen property, the Court may set aside the freezing notice or freezing order to the extent permitted under s 82 (which concerns the release of crime-used property); s 83 (which concerns the release of crime-derived property); and s 84 (which concerns the release of other frozen property). 58 If the freezing notice or order was made on the ground that the person could be declared to be a drug trafficker, the sole source of the Court's power to set aside a freezing notice or order is set out in s 84(2), which provides as follows: 36 ts 72 (4 April 2023). See Ranford v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 45 [9] (Edelman J); Hendricks v The State of Western Australia [2002] WASC 86 [19] (Roberts-Smith J); Re Smith; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia [No 3] [2004] WASC 157 [15] (Roberts-Smith J); Bennett & Co (a firm) v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2005] WASCA 141; (2005) 31 WAR 212 [49] (Malcolm CJ, Wheeler & McLure JJ). 37 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 80. -- 21 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 22 The court may set aside a freezing notice issued for property under section 34(3) or a freezing order for property that was frozen under section 43(5) if the court finds that it is more likely than not that the person who is or will be charged with the offence does not own or effectively control the property, and has not at any time given it away. 59 Section 7 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act concerns when frozen property is confiscated automatically and provides as follows: 7. When frozen property is confiscated automatically (1) Frozen property is confiscated if an objection to the confiscation of the property is not filed on or before the 28th day after the service cut off date for the property. (2) If an objection to the confiscation of frozen property is filed on or before the 28th day after the service cut off date for the property, the property is confiscated if — (a) the objection, or each objection if there are more than one, is finally determined; and (b) where the property is subject to a freezing notice — the freezing notice is not cancelled or set aside; and (c) where the property is subject to a freezing order — the freezing order is not set aside. (3) However, property frozen under a freezing notice is not confiscated under subsection (1) or (2) until the freezing notice is filed in accordance with section 36(6)(a). 60 If a party wished to obtain the release of frozen property prior to the making of a declaration that a person was a drug trafficker, they would seek a hearing of their objection prior to the determination of the relevant criminal proceeding. In this case, the originating summons filed by Zoran (to which Dimche, Paul and Vojslav were later added as plaintiffs) was not heard before the determination of Zoran's criminal proceeding. 61 If the person is declared to be a drug trafficker, their property is confiscated at the time of the declaration by operation of s 8. It was the State's position that once Zoran was declared to be a drug trafficker, the -- 22 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 23 freezing notice ceased to have any force. The property was no longer frozen; it was confiscated.38 62 While it was accepted on behalf of the State that a freezing notice issued on the drug trafficker ground may be set aside under s 84(2) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, the State maintained that the provision had no application in this case as it applies only to a freezing notice which continues to have operative effect and not to the situation in which the property described in the freezing notice has been confiscated to the State pursuant to s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act.39 63 In the circumstances, the State maintained that the key issue for determination was therefore whether the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property the subject of the State's application for a declaration of confiscation was owned by Zoran at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker.40 64 I understood it to be the plaintiffs' position (as articulated in various outlines of submissions) that by operation of s 7(2)(a) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, the property the subject of the State's application for a declaration of confiscation could not yet be confiscated because the plaintiffs' objections to the freezing notice had not yet been determined.41 38 Defendant's submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 3, citing Atkinson v The State of Western Australia [25] and McRobb v The State of Western Australia [30]. 39 Defendant's submissions filed on 23 March 2022, pars 2 and 3, citing Campana v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASC 230 [38] - [40]. 40 As discussed at [42] and [43] above. See the defendant's submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 4, citing Campana v The State of Western Australia [38] - [41]; Whittle v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASC 244 [36]; and Ranford v The State of Western Australia [22]; ts 46, 51 (4 April 2023). 41 First plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, pars 3 and 4; third plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, pars 3 and 4; fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, pars 3 and 4. -- 23 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 24 65 The position adopted by the plaintiffs as outlined above at [64] and as to the operation of s 84(2) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act was not supported by the authorities. It is well established that if the person is declared to be a drug trafficker, their property is confiscated at the time of the declaration by s 8. This confiscation is not linked to, or conditional upon, the adverse determination by the Court of an objection to the confiscation of the frozen property. It occurs automatically on the declaration that the person is a drug trafficker.42 66 Further, under s 39 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, a freezing notice for any property except registrable real property stops being in force as soon as, among other things, the property is confiscated under s 6, s 7 or s 8.43 67 In the course of the hearing, counsel for Vojslav made further submissions as to the statutory framework,44 seeking to emphasise that the objection made was to confiscation of Vojslav's interest in the property the subject of the freezing notice,45 and if the property was not owned or effectively controlled by Zoran when he was declared to be a drug trafficker (that is, if Vojslav had an interest in that property), then that property was not confiscated at the time the declaration was made by s 8, and the freezing notice over that property should be set aside.46 68 On 18 November 2021 it was ordered that the originating summons and the State's summons for a declaration of confiscation be listed together for hearing.47 69 In Campana v The State of Western Australia Jenkins J heard together objections to a freezing notice and the State's application for declarations under s 30. As to the approach that her Honour adopted to such a joint hearing, her Honour recorded as follows:48 42 Centurion Trust Company Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2010] WASCA 133 [223] (Buss JA, with whom Owen JA agreed at [74]). See also Campana v The State of Western Australia [38] and Urbano v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 147 [34], [39] (Pullin JA, with whom Martin CJ agreed). 43 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 39(2)(a). 44 ts 142 - 147 (5 April 2023). 45 ts 143 (5 April 2023). 46 ts 143 - 145 (5 April 2023), citing Campana v The State of Western Australia [39]; Khankhaeng v The State of Western Australia [2019] WASC 361 [16(d)]; Astill v The State of Western Australia [2020] WASC 119 [15]; Lambert v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 145 [7(2)]; Smith v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASC 189 [10]; and Commonwealth Bank of Australia v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 52 [21]. 47 Order 1 of the orders made on 18 November 2021. 48 Campana v The State of Western Australia [38] - [41], cited in Ly v The State of Western Australia [2015] WADC 132 [37] - [38] (Derrick DCJ). -- 24 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 25 If a party wished to obtain the release of frozen property prior to the making of a declaration that a person was a drug trafficker, they would seek a hearing of their objection prior to the determination of the relevant criminal proceedings. That did not occur in this case, presumably because the plaintiffs were content to wait until both their objections and the defendants' application for declarations under s 30 could be heard together. The defendant acquiesced to the joint hearing. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Centurion Trust Company Ltd (No 5) [2008] WASC 107 Templeman J pointed out that the Act provided that once property had been confiscated it was no longer frozen property. A court cannot order that a freezing notice be set aside or frozen property be released once property the subject of the freezing notice has been confiscated. The practical way for me to address the issues at this stage is to consider whether, absent the freezing notice, the property in the table was owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff at the time the first plaintiff was declared to be a drug trafficker on 20 October 2006 or whether the items were property that the first plaintiff had given away at any time prior to the declaration being made. If the frozen property does not meet these criteria the freezing notice in respect to the property ought to be set aside and the defendants' application for a declaration in respect to it ought to be dismissed. If, on the other hand, the property meets one of the criteria in s 8(1), I should dismiss the plaintiffs' objection and make the appropriate declaration under s 30. In deciding to proceed in this manner, I have not overlooked the fact that s 8 and s 84 are not in identical terms. However, given that the real question in these proceedings is whether the property has been confiscated pursuant to s 8, I should regard that section and s 30 as governing my decision in this matter. The onus is on the defendant to establish that a particular item of property has been confiscated. The Act s 102 provides that these proceedings are taken to be civil proceedings for all purposes and a question of fact to be decided in them is to be decided on the balance of probabilities. 70 At an early stage of the hearing the appropriateness of employing the approach adopted by Jenkins J was raised with the parties. I understood that counsel for Vojslav took no issue with the same and it was an approach endorsed by the State,49 the State having acknowledged that it was only Zoran's interest in property that could be confiscated.50 71 I did not understand Zoran, Dimche or Paul to object to the Court proceeding in this way. 49 ts 50 - 51 (4 April 2023). 50 ts 151 (5 April 2023). -- 25 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 26 The evidence The State's evidence 72 Subject to any objections as to admissibility, it was ordered that the following affidavits filed on behalf of the State would stand as the deponent's evidence in chief:51 (a) the affidavit of John Charles Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008; (b) the affidavit of Deborah Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021; (c) the affidavit of Cameron Shaun Blaine sworn on 27 July 2021; and (d) the affidavit of Christopher Michael Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021. 73 It was further ordered that by 15 November 2021 each party was to advise the other parties in writing as to which deponents, if any, were required to attend the hearing for the purpose of cross-examination.52 74 On the basis that no plaintiff sought to cross-examine any of the State's witnesses, the State's deponents were excused from attending the hearing.53 75 At the hearing, the four affidavits filed on behalf of the State were read,54 there was no cross-examination of the State's witnesses, and there was no objection taken as to admissibility.55 Set out below is a summary of the respective unchallenged evidence of each deponent. The evidence of JC Hancock 76 In his affidavit, John Charles Hancock deposed to being a Detective Senior Constable in the Proceeds of Crime Squad of the Western Australian Police Service. As to the facts deposed to in his affidavit, Mr Hancock explained that they were within his own knowledge or appeared in the file maintained by the Proceeds of Crime Squad in relation to the freezing notice, and were true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Mr Hancock attached to his affidavit documents marked 'JCH1' to 'JCH18'. 51 Order 1(b) of the orders made on 21 October 2021. 52 Order 2 of the orders made on 21 October 2021. 53 Order 6 of the orders made on 18 November 2021; ts 24 (18 November 2021). 54 ts 45 (4 April 2023). 55 ts 52 - 53 (4 April 2023). -- 26 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 27 77 Among other things, Mr Hancock deposed that: (a) on 19 February 2008 Zoran was convicted in the Perth District Court of one count of supplying a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine, and two counts of selling it to another, committed on 12 December 2005, 16 December 2005 and 18 December 2005; (b) on 19 February 2008 Zoran was declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act in relation to the conviction described above; (c) Zoran is the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property; (d) on 20 December 2005 cash amounts were seized from Zoran, that is $2,210, $3,500 (of which $800 was controlled purchase money), $2,600 (of which $2,200 was controlled purchase money), $950, $55, $300, and $50; (e) Zoran was the account holder of four Commonwealth Bank accounts, being: (i) Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592; (ii) Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1013 2414; (iii) Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 1477; and (iv) Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309; and (f) Zoran was the account holder for two Westpac accounts, being: (i) Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836; and (ii) Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935. 78 A number of documents were attached to Mr Hancock's affidavit, which included a copy of: (a) the freezing notice; (b) the statutory declarations made by Zoran, Paul and Dimche; -- 27 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 28 (c) the certificate of final outcome of charge and the sentencing transcript with respect to the conviction and sentencing of Zoran for having contravened s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; (d) the certificate of title for the Balcatta property which records Zoran to be the sole registered proprietor of that property by a transfer registered on 22 November 1990, and which records a mortgage in favour of Westpac registered on 9 April 2003; and (e) Commonwealth Bank and Westpac account statements for each of the six accounts referred to at [77(e)] and [77(f)] above. 79 I noted that the certificate of final outcome of charge that was attached to Mr Hancock's affidavit recorded that Zoran was sentenced to imprisonment for a total effective term of 52 months, and was made eligible for parole.56 80 Consistent with the refined orders pressed by the State at the hearing of this matter, Mr Hancock deposed that no declaration of confiscation was sought in relation to the money standing to the credit of Zoran in Westpac Investment Loan account number 037-134 40- 0041, or as to any and all interest payable on such money as this was a home loan.57 (That is, no order was sought with respect to the property that had been identified in sch 2 of the freezing notice as item 14.) The evidence of D Lindsay 81 The evidence of Deborah Lindsay grounded the State's claim to the moneys standing to Zoran's credit in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only (as described at [37(d)] above).58 82 Ms Lindsay in her affidavit sworn on 24 August 2021 deposed to being employed by the Commonwealth Bank as a Law Enforcement Agency Request Specialist within Regulatory and Control Operations (RACO). 83 She deposed to having held that position for the preceding 20 years; that her responsibilities included responding to and processing statutory notices served on the Commonwealth Bank; that she was authorised to access the Commonwealth Bank's records in order to 56 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH10. 57 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 18. 58 ts 47 (4 April 2023); ts 122, 133 (5 April 2023). -- 28 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 29 perform this duty; that she issues instructions to have documents retrieved; and that documents are retrieved from various locations including the Bank's branches, operation centres and records centres. 84 As to the maintenance of the Commonwealth Bank's records, Ms Lindsay deposed as follows:59 The Bank is engaged in the ordinary business of banking. In the usual course of business, the Bank compiles and maintains banker's records, for example, new account applications and statements which record deposits into and payments out of each account and the amount standing to the credit of the account on particular dates. These records show: (a) money drawn on the account whether in the form of cash, cheques, or electronic transfer; (b) the date upon which the proceeds of each cheque were debited to the account; and (c) deposits into the account and the date upon which the proceeds of each deposit were credited to the account. All records created by the Bank, in the usual course of business, are maintained according to the Bank's guidelines and policy. The Bank conducts its business of banking in all Australian States and Territories and at various branches across Australia. Bankwest is one of its divisions. The Bank, including Bankwest as one of its divisions, is a bank for the purpose of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA). 85 Ms Lindsay attached to her affidavit three documents, marked 'A' to 'C', being various Commonwealth Bank records. As to her review of the records of the Commonwealth Bank, Ms Lindsay deposed as follows:60 From the Bank's records I can state that Commonwealth Bank Term Deposit Account BSB 06 6117 account number 5009 3309 ('the CBA Term Deposit') was held in the sole name of Zoran STANOEVSKI and was opened on 6 April 2005. A restraint was placed on the CBA Term Deposit in its entirety on 21 December 2005 following the receipt of a freezing notice issued 59 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, pars 4 - 7. 60 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, pars 8 - 16. -- 29 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 30 pursuant to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) ('the Freezing Notice'). On 5 May 2020 the CBA Term Deposit was closed due to the account maturing and a CBA Bank Cheque was made payable to Zoran STANOEVSKI which was drawn for the funds in the sum of $31,013.46 ('the Cheque'). Attached hereto and marked "A" is a copy of a List of Transactions for the CBA Term Deposit account 06117 50093309 which shows that the account was closed at WHITFORD, a branch of the Commonwealth Bank on 5 May 2020. Attached hereto and marked "B" is a copy of CBA Bank Cheque number 659897 ('the Cheque'). The Cheque was presented on 18 May 2020 and the funds were deposited to a Bankwest account BSB 306 054 account number 052454-4 which is held in the sole name of Zoran STANOEVSKI ('the Bankwest Account'). Attached hereto and marked "C" is a copy of a List of Transactions (Account Transactions) for the Bankwest Account 052454-4 which shows that the Cheque was deposited to the account on 18 May 2020 and the proceeds in the sum of $31,013.46 were credited to this account. A restraint has been placed on the Bankwest Account as it contains funds from the CBA Term Deposit which was the subject of the Freezing Notice. Due to the operation of the Bankwest systems, it has been necessary to restrain the entire balance of the Bankwest Account rather than only the funds equal to the balance of the CBA Term Deposit. As at the time of swearing this affidavit, the Bankwest Account has a balance of $31,014.12 The evidence of CM Anderson 86 The affidavit of Christopher Michael Anderson grounded the State's claim in relation to the cash seizures, particularly as to the amount of cash seized, from where it was seized, and by whom it was seized.61 87 Mr Anderson in his affidavit sworn on 14 July 2021 deposed to being a Senior Paralegal employed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP). As to the facts deposed to in his affidavit, 61 ts 47, 48 (4 April 2023). -- 30 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 31 Mr Anderson explained that they were within his own knowledge or appeared from the files maintained by the ODPP which he had examined in the course of his duties, particularly the confiscations file (DPP 05/3366 in respect of this proceeding) and the indictable prosecution file (DPP 06/743 for Zoran in relation to indictment number 1514 of 2006 in the District Court). 88 Mr Anderson attached four documents to his affidavit, marked 'CMA1' to 'CMA4'. Mr Anderson's affidavit, inclusive of attachments, exceeded 1200 pages. 89 As to Zoran's criminal history, Mr Anderson deposed that by a prosecution notice dated 20 December 2005 lodged in the Magistrates Court, Zoran was charged with having:62 (a) supplied to another a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, committed on 12 December 2005 contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; (b) sold to another a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, committed on 16 December 2005 contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; and (c) sold to another a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, committed between 17 December 2005 and 18 December 2005 contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 90 Mr Anderson further deposed that: (a) on 25 August 2006 Zoran was committed to the District Court for trial in relation to the three charges that were set out in the prosecution notice; (b) s 95 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) required the prosecution to lodge with the superior court and serve on the accused any evidentiary material relevant to the charge; (c) the evidentiary material is indexed and collated into a trial bundle which is known as a 'prosecution brief'; (d) on or about 3 October 2006 the ODPP filed with the District Court in Perth a prosecution brief in relation to the prosecution notice; 62 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, par 4. -- 31 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 32 (e) on 27 February 2007 the Director of Public Prosecutions signed an indictment presented in the District Court in Perth against Zoran and Adam Heath Cook charging that: (i) on 12 December 2005 at South Perth Mr Cook and Zoran supplied a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, to another contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; (ii) on 16 December 2005 at South Perth Mr Cook and Zoran sold a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, to another contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; (iii) on 18 December 2005 at South Perth Mr Cook and Zoran sold a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, to another contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; and (iv) on 20 December 2005 at South Perth Mr Cook offered to supply a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, to another contrary to s 6(1)(c) of the Misuse of Drugs Act; (f) between on or about 3 October 2006 and on or about 12 October 2007, the ODPP filed with the District Court in Perth supplementary indices to the prosecution brief in relation to the prosecution notice which incorporated additional material; and (g) the matter proceeded to trial in the District Court in Perth on 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23 October 2007. 91 Mr Anderson attached to his affidavit copies of the prosecution notice; the indictment; the prosecution brief and the revised prosecution brief (excluding audio tapes, compact discs and video record of interviews); and the trial transcript (excluding the transcript when the Court was ordered to be a closed court), marked 'CMA1' to 'CMA4' respectively. 92 As to the attachments to his affidavit, Mr Anderson made particular reference to certain documents. It is convenient to reproduce his evidence at pars 11 and 12 of his affidavit here: -- 32 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 33 I refer to the statement of Matthew Paul Taylor dated 10 March 2006 and annexure A at pages 38 to 42 of the Prosecution Brief. Annexure A on page 41 is a list of serial numbers of the cash that had been provided to Undercover Operative #71 ("supplied money") and on page 42 is a list of serial numbers of the cash seized during the search warrant at 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta ("seized money"). The serial numbers highlighted in grey in the seized money match the serial numbers of the supplied money which totals AUD $3,000.00. I refer to exhibit log numbered 88019 on page 79 of the Prosecution Brief. Item No 1 is $3000.00 Aust currency and the specific location is described as Item 1 & 7 (Buy money). 93 As to the statement of Detective Senior Constable Matthew Paul Taylor made on 10 March 2006 (which statements formed part of the prosecution brief and was attached to Mr Anderson's affidavit), at pars 11 and 12, Mr Taylor recorded as follows:63 On the 9th of March 2006 I received a series of photographs from Detective SIMMONDS who is attached to the Organised Crime Squad. Where of amounts of money which had been seized during the search warrant conducted at the accused premises. I analysed the serial numbers of the seized cash against the serial number of cash which had been provided to Undercover Operative #71. This cash was used to purchase a quantity of methyl amphetamine which took place on the 16th of December 2005. (Please refer to annexure A of this statement for list of serial numbers). The evidence of CS Blaine 94 Cameron Shaun Blaine in his affidavit sworn on 27 July 2021 deposed to being a Detective Senior Supervisor who in 2005 was attached to the Organised Crime Squad. As to the facts deposed to in his affidavit, Mr Blaine explained that they were within his own knowledge or from (his then) recent review of the prosecution brief for indictment number 1514 of 2006 in the District Court, which was attached to the affidavit of Mr Anderson. 95 Mr Blaine attached two documents to his affidavit, a copy of the signed witness statement that he had made on 10 March 2006 and exhibit log 88016, which he explained related to searches made by Mr Blaine under a warrant issued pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act. 63 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 68 - 69). -- 33 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 34 These documents had been included in the prosecution brief attached to Mr Anderson's affidavit.64 96 In his affidavit Mr Blaine made a correction to the witness statement that he had made on 10 March 2006, and deposed as follows:65 Having carefully reviewed my signed witness statement dated 10 March 2006 and exhibit log 88016, the correct amounts of cash which I located at Mr Zoran STANOEVSKI's home address of 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta were $2,600 and $300 and not $1,600 and $300 as stated in my signed witness statement dated 10 March 2006. The plaintiffs' evidence 97 Subject to any objections as to admissibility, it was ordered that the affidavits of the plaintiffs filed on 19 October 2021 would stand as the deponents' evidence in chief.66 I understood those affidavits to be: (a) the affidavit of Zoran sworn on 16 October 2011; (b) the affidavits of Dimche sworn on 30 January 2011, 15 June 2011 and 26 September 2011; (c) the affidavit of Paul sworn on 30 March 2009 (which was in substantively the same terms as his affidavit sworn on 5 March 2009) and an unsworn affidavit dated February 2009; and (d) the affidavit of Vojslav sworn on 15 May 2009. 98 As is recorded above, it was further ordered that by 15 November 2021 each party was to advise the other parties in writing as to which deponents, if any, were required to attend the hearing for the purpose of cross-examination.67 As it was the State's stated intention to cross-examine each of the plaintiffs, on 18 November 2021 it was ordered that they attend the hearing for that purpose.68 99 Set out below is a summary of the respective evidence of each plaintiff. 64 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 92 - 94, 105). 65 Affidavit of CS Blaine sworn on 27 July 2021, par 5. 66 Order 1(a) of the orders made on 21 October 2021. 67 Order 2 of the orders made on 21 October 2021. 68 Order 4 of the orders made on 18 November 2021. -- 34 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 35 The evidence of Zoran 100 Zoran's affidavit sworn on 16 October 2011 stood as his evidence in chief.69 Twenty eight documents were attached to Zoran's affidavit marked 'ZS1' to 'ZS28'. His affidavit, inclusive of attachments, exceeded 600 pages. In the course of the hearing Zoran was cross-examined. 101 Set out below is an overview of Zoran's evidence. Where his account is supported by documentary evidence, I have recorded the same. Connection to the plaintiffs 102 In his affidavit Zoran explained his relationship to the plaintiffs, that Paul is his son and Vojslav is his father. He deposed that his mother, Ordena, passed away on 27 March 2005, and that he had a younger brother, Zarko Stanoevski. He further explained that he had married Vesna Stanoevska in 1984 and that they had divorced in early 1990. The purchase of the Balcatta property in 1984 and financial contributions made by others, including Vojslav 103 Zoran deposed that he and Vesna became the registered owners of the Balcatta property on 27 December 1984, which was purchased for $81,000 (which amount was inclusive of all costs, stamp duties and other incidental expenses). 104 As to the purchase price, he deposed that $51,000 of the $81,000 was met by the following: (a) a loan from Vojslav and Ordena to Zoran and Vesna of about $20,000; (b) Zoran's savings of $21,000; and (c) a loan from Vesna's parents to Zoran and Vesna of about $10,000, and the remaining $30,000 was borrowed from Westpac and secured by a mortgage in favour of Westpac. 69 Exhibit P1A; ts 109 (5 April 2023). -- 35 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 36 105 Zoran deposed that furnishings and some fittings were paid for by Vojslav at a cost of more than $6,000, and that he agreed with Vojslav at the time that the moneys provided by Vojslav would be as a loan. 106 Zoran deposed that following an injury he suffered and Vesna's pregnancy, he asked his parents to pay the mortgage payments for the Balcatta property. He deposed that he verbally agreed with Vojslav to repay him when he was in a financial position to do so. 107 He deposed that Vojslav continued to make the minimal monthly payments towards the Balcatta property mortgage from about mid-1985 and August 1987, in amounts between $305 and $365, and to a total of at least $7,320. 108 Zoran also deposed to the circumstances in which he came to borrow further funds from Vojslav in October 1985, which were used to meet living expenses and which loan was documented by a lawyer and secured by a caveat over the Balcatta property. (While Zoran did not attach a copy of the loan agreement or caveat to his affidavit, a copy was attached by Vojslav to his affidavit.)70 Zoran deposed that Vesna did not return to work after Paul was born, and there was little Zoran could do having suffered a serious back injury. The transfer of the Balcatta property to Vojslav and Ordena in 1987 109 In 1987 the Balcatta property was transferred to Vojslav and Ordena. As to the circumstances in which the Balcatta property came to be transferred in 1987, Zoran deposed as follows.71 For approximately 18 months after the birth of my son Paul I was, apart from payments received from Social Security, entirely dependent upon my father not only to meet mortgage payments of 55 Castleton Street but also for living expenses. My father had become increasingly concerned at this position which left him with no security for the substantial money that he was paying towards 55 Castleton Street and to support my family and I. In August 1987 my parents and I had a detailed conversation about my and their financial position and what was to be done about the ownership of 55 Castleton Street towards which I have made very little contribution. It was then agreed between us that 55 Castleton Street would be transferred into the names of my parents because they were the primary people who had contributed to its purchase and keeping up mortgage payments. 70 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-4, VS-5. 71 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 18 - 20. -- 36 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 37 Since my financial obligations to my parents had, since my marriage, and subsequent injury, continued to increase this seemed to me to be a fair way of reflecting the true ownership of 55 Castleton Street. This was particularly so because it was also agreed [with] my parents that Vesna and I could continue to live at 55 Castleton Street free of rent. While there were discussions about rent, because it was recognised that I had no real income from which rent could be paid this would not arise until such time as Vesna or I were working and earning a wage. I discussed the situation with Vesna, and since we have very little choice in the matter we agreed to transfer 55 Castleton Street to my parents. Throughout this time, I continued to undergo treatment for my back injury. 110 Zoran deposed to having separated from Vesna in late November 1988, at which time he was left to reside in the Balcatta property alone. 111 He deposed that in early 1989 he left the Balcatta property and moved into his parents' house, after which his parents then found tenants and received a rental income from the Balcatta property. Family Court proceedings in 1989 112 Zoran deposed that Vesna initiated a divorce in about late 1989 or early 1990. As to a financial settlement with Vesna, Zoran deposed as follows:72 There were lengthy negotiations about the financial settlement which would result in finalising my divorce. I did not have any money of my own because I was paying rent and maintenance for my son Paul. Any financial settlement would have to be made by my parents because this was the only access to money that I had. I was continually consulting my parents with respect to how much could be paid to my wife and finally an agreement was reached that the divorce proceedings would be completed upon payment of a lump sum of $15,000. This was paid in mid-September 1989 by my father. Transfer of the Balcatta property in 1990 to Zoran 113 Zoran deposed to the continued improvement in his health and his increased employment. He also deposed to his plan to open his own security company, for which he would need to raise funds. 114 It was deposed that in about September or October 1990 he approached Vojslav to discuss his plans and to see whether it would be possible to borrow money against any of Vojslav's assets. 72 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 24. -- 37 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 38 115 Zoran deposed that by that time, Vojslav had stopped working because his health had declined and he had undergone an operation on his knees, and that his father had informed him that he was approaching the end of his working life and did not want to take on liabilities, but under specific conditions he would be prepared to transfer the Balcatta property to Zoran. Zoran deposed that the conditions were as follows:73 a) that I would as soon as possible be paid to him or [sic] monies that I owed to him. This consisted of a sum of approximately $90,000 made up of the $30,000 loan to myself and my wife, $30,000 being the sum of the mortgage that he had taken over from myself and my wife, $6000 on account of furniture and fittings, the divorce settlement amount of $15,000 and the mortgage repayments made by my father and my mother during the period that I was unwell amounting to almost $8000. b) That until such time as a tenant continue to occupy 55 Castleton Street he would continue to receive the rent paid. c) That if anything should happen to my father I would make over half the value of the property to my brother Zarko. d) That he would continue to have an interest in the house until such time as I had discharged my liabilities to him. 116 Zoran deposed that he agreed to these conditions and on that basis the Balcatta property was transferred to him in late November 1990. 117 In the course of cross-examination Zoran explained that the debt owed to Vojslav was to be repaid by Zoran when he had the money to do so with interest,74 and Zoran accepted that it could have been repaid from income, savings or borrowings.75 118 After the transfer of the Balcatta property, Zoran did not start his own security business and he deposed to the reasons which informed that decision. The effect of Zoran's evidence was that the decision to not proceed was primarily informed by his mother being diagnosed in early 1991 with cancer, causing him to devote his time and financial resources to her care and treatment. He also deposed that until mid-1995 Zoran continued to live with his parents in their home, the Balcatta property remained tenanted, and Vojslav and Ordena continued to receive the rent paid by the Balcatta property tenants. 73 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 28. 74 ts 79 (4 April 2023). 75 ts 80 (4 April 2023). -- 38 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 39 119 In the course of cross-examination, Zoran confirmed that his parents received the rent from the Balcatta property from when it was tenanted in about 1990 to 1995, and that the rental received was not applied in reduction of the debt owed by Zoran to his parents.76 120 As to why the rent was received by his parents, Zoran's evidence was '[b]ecause they owned the property. They were in control of the property.'77 121 Zoran deposed that over the course of a few months in mid-1995 Zoran moved into the Balcatta property while working several jobs.78 He deposed that he registered his own security business under the name of 'Nation Security' in 1997,79 which he operated 'in a small way' in the evenings, while also working for others. He suffered a number of health set-backs and in late 1998 ceased work completely. He returned to work for others in 2000, but with restrictions, and from 22 February 2002 received insurance payments.80 122 He deposed that instead of pursuing his plans for the security company, Zoran borrowed money against the Balcatta property in 2002 to consolidate an earlier loan with ANZ which borrowed money had been spent in making investments between 1998 and 2001 (which investments were not recovered).81 Zoran was cross-examined as to why he did not then borrow to repay his parents, the effect of his evidence was that he was concentrating on his business and he was not in a position to then borrow more to repay the debt with interest.82 123 As to his income, Zoran deposed that he received insurance payments until March 2005 and thereafter qualified for a disability pension. Statutory declaration 124 In the course of cross-examination Zoran accepted that on 22 December 2005 he made a statutory declaration after he was served with the freezing order.83 76 ts 80 (4 April 2023). 77 ts 80 (4 April 2023). 78 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS2. 79 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 34, ZS3. 80 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 35 and 36, ZS6. 81 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 37, ZS7, ZS8. 82 ts 81 (4 April 2023). 83 Exhibit 1. A copy of the statutory declaration was also before the Court as an attachment to the affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. -- 39 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 40 125 At paragraph 2 of that document, Zoran declared as follows: The name and address of persons who may be an interested party in Item 3, 14 & 15 relating to Certificate of Title Volume 1658 Folio 953 and being known as 55 Castleton Street BALCATTA in the said State is PAUL STANOEVSKI of 55 Castleton Street BALCATTA and WESTPAC Banking Corporation. 126 It was Zoran's evidence that he could not recall why Vojslav's interest was not recorded in the statutory declaration. The effect of his evidence was that the omission was a mistake and that he did not have a lawyer acting for him at that time.84 The sources of moneys frozen and the interests held by others 127 In his affidavit Zoran explained the sources of moneys that were held in various bank accounts and had been found in the Balcatta property, had been seized, and were the subject of the freezing notice. Item 17 - Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1013 2414 128 Zoran first addressed item 17 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank account 6117 1013 2414 and any and all interest payable on such money. 129 While the notice recorded the estimated value of that property to be $1, Zoran deposed that the account held a greater sum. However, as the State did not to press for declarations with respect to the property that had been identified in sch 2 at item 17, it was not necessary to make findings as to that property and I do not record here Zoran's evidence as to the same. Item 12 - Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 (and item 1 on the State's case) 130 Zoran addressed item 12 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and any and all interest payable on such money. 84 ts 78 (4 April 2023). -- 40 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 41 131 Zoran deposed that the term deposit account was one which was opened on 6 April 2005,85 from proceeds of another term deposit account that had been opened on 15 February 2005 (Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130) which had been held in the names of Zoran and his mother Ordena,86 which held money that had been previously held in a Commonwealth Bank account held by Ordena alone (Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 5002056), which was closed on 15 February 2005 with a final balance of $21,974.55.87 132 Zoran deposed that on 15 February 2005 Ordena had verbally instructed him to go to the bank and to put the money that was in her passbook account into an account to be held in her name and Zoran's name jointly; and that she told him that this was money which she had saved for Paul's wedding. 133 He deposed that Paul was very close to Ordena and was her eldest and favourite grandchild. He also deposed to the instructions he received from Ordena in February 2005 (when Ordena knew she had a limited life expectancy) as to the other items to be given to Paul at his wedding.88 134 Zoran's evidence at the hearing was that Ordena did not leave a will, and that Paul had not yet married.89 135 When asked in the course of cross-examination about the differences between his affidavit evidence and that of Paul's, Zoran said:90 Well, she gave me the money to hold it for Paul. That was the savings she was actually saving for him. So before, actually, she deceased, she said, 'Make sure to keep that money, so when he gets married or when he has a family, to pass the money over to him.' 136 While Zoran was not able to recall precisely when Ordena told him that the money had been saved by her for Paul's wedding, his evidence was that he did recall that Dimche was present when the conversation with Ordena took place.91 85 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS14. 86 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS15. 87 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS16. 88 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS17. 89 ts 82 (4 April 2023). 90 ts 82 (4 April 2023). 91 ts 82 - 83 (4 April 2023). -- 41 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 42 137 Zoran deposed that on 5 or 6 April 2005, four days after Ordena's funeral, he attended the Mt Hawthorn branch of Commonwealth Bank to make Ordena's arrangements, which included closing term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3130 in the amount of $20,000 (which was held in both his and Ordena's names) and opening term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 in his own name, but for Paul on his wedding day in accordance with Ordena's wishes.92 138 As is recorded above at [40], the State confirmed that a declaration of confiscation was no longer sought regarding the Commonwealth Bank account that was described in item 12 of the freezing notice (term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309) as that account had been closed.93 139 As is also recorded above, it was the State's position that the moneys standing to Zoran's credit in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only (which was within the ambit of freezing notice item 1), together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020, originated from Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 (which had been frozen and recorded as item 12 in the freezing notice). 140 According to the State's evidence, Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 was closed after Zoran made his affidavit. That said, Zoran's evidence as to the circumstances in which Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 came to hold funds was relevant to the question of whether the declaration sought with respect to the moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 (item 1 of the freezing notice) ought be made. Item 11 - Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 141 Zoran addressed item 11 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 and any and all interest payable on such money. 92 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 51 (which refers to 6 April 2005), and par 56 (which refers to 5 April 2005). 93 ts 47 (4 April 2023); see also the defendant's schedule relating to the minute of proposed orders and declaration filed on 6 April 2023, par 2(d). -- 42 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 43 142 As to that account, Zoran deposed that it was opened on 29 February 2000, when Paul was 15 years old, with the intention to create an account in which Paul's birthday and Christmas money could be held and saved. He further deposed that later it was used to receive Paul's Centrelink, Youth Allowance and Aus Study payments. 143 Zoran deposed to having made one payment into Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592, which was the sum of $4,700 on 18 August 2004 which was sourced from Zoran's Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 361431, which Zoran closed on the same date. 144 Zoran deposed that he deposited the sum of $4,700 into Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 to meet Paul's strata fees on a unit he had purchased, and to gift the balance to Paul. 145 Zoran deposed that payments into Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 were always in small amounts except for $7,000 which was a first home-owner's grant paid in on 2 September 2002 for the unit Paul bought on Great Eastern Highway; and $4,785.20 which was paid by Zoran in August 2004. 146 Among other things, Zoran attached to his affidavit a copy of a strata fee invoice dated 5 January 2005 in the amount of $4,988.99;94 and the account statements for Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 1007 4592 from February 2000 until September 2007. Item 5 - Cash in the sum of $3,500 147 The freezing notice included $3,500 seized from the Balcatta property. As to that sum, Zoran deposed that the amount had been paid to him on 20 December 2005 by Dimche who had earlier that day withdrawn an amount of $4,000 from his bank.95 148 By way of context, Zoran deposed:96 Dimche gave his money to me for the specific purpose of applying it in part payment of the marble tombstone to be placed on my mother's grave on the anniversary of her death. 94 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS20. 95 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS21. 96 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 66; ts 83 (4 April 2023). -- 43 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 44 149 Zoran attached to his affidavit a copy of the invoice he had received for the tombstone and for the burial lot.97 He deposed that it had been necessary to make advance payment in order to have the tombstone ready for the anniversary of his mother's death. 150 In the course of his evidence Zoran confirmed that the tombstone was completed, but said that he did not use the money provided by Dimche for that purpose as '[i]t was his'.98 As to the cost of the tombstone, Zoran's evidence was that he 'got some money from friends and family and my dad. We had to pay it off gradually'.99 151 In the course of his evidence, Zoran stated that the money frozen was borrowed from Dimche and denied that it had been gifted to him.100 152 Of the $3,500 that had been frozen, a declaration of confiscation was sought only for $2,700 as $800 was said to be controlled purchase moneys. Zoran did not address this in his affidavit or otherwise. Item 6 - Cash in the sum of $2,600 153 The freezing notice included $2,600 seized from the Balcatta property. As to that sum, Zoran deposed that in his bedroom, within the pages of an old blue coloured diary, he had placed an amount of $2,900. The money had been placed there in two bundles, the first bundle of $2,600 was placed within the diary at one page and the second bundle of $300 was placed within the diary at another page. 154 Zoran deposed that the money had been collected by him from tenants at the unit belonging to his son Paul.101 Further, that the amount had been collected over a period of several weeks and comprised rent payments which he had collected approximately fortnightly from the existing tenant, and instalment payments of damages that had been paid by the previous tenant. 155 He deposed that the bundle was wrapped in a piece of paper together with a rubber band and he had written the amount in the bundle on the wrapping paper. 97 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS22. 98 ts 83 (4 April 2023). 99 ts 83 (4 April 2023). 100 ts 83 (4 April 2023). 101 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 69; ts 84 (4 April 2023). -- 44 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 45 156 Of the $2,600 that had been frozen, a declaration of confiscation was sought only for $400 as $2,200 was said to be controlled purchase moneys. Zoran did not address this in his affidavit. 157 In the course of cross-examination, counsel referred to the affidavit of Mr Anderson and to Mr Anderson's evidence that $2,200 of the $2,600 was said to be controlled purchase moneys. Despite this Zoran maintained that the sum of $2,600 was from collected rent.102 As to the same, Zoran's further evidence was as follows:103 In relation to the lease, what was the address of the rental property? --- Great Eastern Highway. I think it was 32 Great Eastern Highway. Was there a signed lease? --- No. And why didn't Paul collect the rent from the tenant himself? --- Well, the tenant used to come and drop it off. And Paul used to – I used to – I used to put it away for him. And why wasn't money just paid into Paul's bank account? --- He was – he was just saving some money. He wanted to buy a car. He wanted to buy a few things and he said, that – can you just put that aside. I just – he was just saving some money, $50 here, $100 there. Yes. Wouldn't it just be easier that it is paid into a bank account? --- Yes. He just does it the old tradition, you know. I still do it today. Item 7 - Cash in the sum of $950 158 The freezing notice included $950 seized from the Balcatta property. As to that sum, Zoran deposed that on 19 December 2005 he had withdrawn an amount of $900 from his Nation Security account (the account the subject of item 13 of the freezing notice), and he attached to his affidavit an account withdrawal receipt for that amount.104 159 Zoran deposed that he did not remember whether he had added $50 to the bundle of money during the course of the day, but did remember that he had placed this bundle of cash in the walk-in robe of his bedroom on top of a pile of his clothes. He deposed that he used to do this from time to time after his pension payment had been received, 102 ts 84 (4 April 2023). 103 ts 84 (4 April 2023). 104 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 73, ZS24. -- 45 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 46 and that his intention on this occasion was to spend the money on family Christmas presents.105 160 There was apparent inconsistency in Zoran's account as to the addition of $50 in that later in the same affidavit, Zoran deposed that on 19 December 2005 he withdrew from his Nation Security account (the account the subject of item 13 of the freezing notice) the amount of $900 in $100 bills and placed it in a single bundle in the walk-in robe in his bedroom, together with a $50 bill from his wallet.106 Item 13 - Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 161 Zoran addressed item 13 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI trading as Nation Security in Westpac business cheque account number 036-072 13-7836 and any and all interest payable on such money. 162 As to that account, Zoran deposed that it was a cheque account which he specifically opened for paying expenses incurred by his security business conducted under the name 'Nation Security'; and that the account would have been opened at the same time as the business in 1997. 163 He deposed that the account underwent two periods of operation, first, for the Nation Security business (which traded irregularly between 1997 until the end of 2001), and second, as one of his personal accounts (which he used from early 2002 to pay his personal expenses by cheque). 164 Among other things, he deposed that from May 2005 until the freezing order was made, payments into this account came almost exclusively from Centrelink for his disability pension. He attached to his affidavit copies of the bank statements in his possession from August 1998 until the account was frozen.107 105 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 74. 106 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 78. 107 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS25, ZS27. -- 46 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 47 Item 15 - Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 165 Zoran addressed item 15 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Westpac deposit account 736-053 52-8935 and any and all interest payable on such money. 166 As to that account, Zoran deposed that it was a saving account which before 19 February 2003 was called a Classic Saver account and thereafter a Rocket Saver account. 167 He deposed that until 21 December 2001 this was an account into which he had banked the income of his business trading as Nation Security, and from that date until March 2005, this was the account into which the insurance payments (when he could not work) were paid, first by Royal Sun Alliance and later by Asteron Life Insurance. 168 He further deposed to the account later being linked to the mortgage account for the Balcatta property, and attached to his affidavit a copy of the bank statements for the account from November 1996 until the date of the freezing order.108 169 In his affidavit Zoran also explained the purpose for some of the larger withdrawals that had been made from the account in November 2003 and September 2004. The evidence of Dimche 170 Three affidavits made by Dimche stood as his evidence in chief.109 171 The first was the affidavit sworn on 30 January 2011 and filed in this proceeding on 18 October 2021. Dimche attached three documents to his first affidavit, being a copy of his statutory declaration made on 3 February 2006; a copy of the affidavit of David Martindale Shannon sworn on 10 October 2007; and a copy of an absolute caveat signed by Dimche dated 1 May 2006 with respect to the Balcatta property, which recorded Dimche's interest as arising by virtue of: An Acknowledgment of Debt and Deed of Charge dated 21st April 2006 and made between the registered proprietor as Borrower and the caveator as Lender. 108 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS25. 109 ts 89 - 90 (4 April 2023); exhibits P2A to P2C. -- 47 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 48 Dimche did not describe in any affidavit the circumstances in which the acknowledgment or deed were entered into, and did not attach to any affidavit a copy of the same. 172 The second was an affidavit sworn on 15 June 2011 and filed in this proceeding on 17 June 2011. Dimche attached one document to his second affidavit, being a copy of an amended settlement statement dated 3 September 2002 prepared by Global Settlements in respect of the sale of a property described as 2 Eric Street, Midland. 173 The third was an affidavit sworn on 26 September 2011 and filed in this proceeding on 18 October 2021 as part of a bundle of affidavits. By his third affidavit Dimche made a correction to his second affidavit. 174 Set out below is an overview of Dimche's evidence. Where his account is supported by documentary evidence, I have recorded the same. Connection to the other plaintiffs 175 In his second affidavit Dimche explained that Ordena and his father, Kiro Nikoleski, were second cousins; that the families migrated to Australia from the same region in Macedonia and had known each other for generations in Macedonia and then in Western Australia; and explained their close familial and cultural bond. He further explained that from respect and custom, he referred to Ordena as 'Aunty' and Vojslav as 'Uncle'. Purchase and sale of 2 Eric Street, Midland 176 Dimche deposed that in 2001 he and Zoran had bought a property together in equal shares, located at 2 Eric Street, Midland. When the property was sold in 2002 the balance after repaying the loan taken to acquire the property was $44,078.30. Dimche's evidence was that the amount was paid to Zoran, as was reflected in the amended settlement statement dated 3 September 2002 prepared by Global Settlements in respect of the sale of a property described as 2 Eric Street, Midland.110 Dimche further deposed that he had asked Zoran to keep his half of the money in Zoran's account on Dimche's behalf.111 110 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 7, DN1. 111 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 8. -- 48 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 49 Statutory declaration 177 In his first affidavit Dimche explained that he objected to the confiscation of property under the freezing notice, and attached to his affidavit a copy of the statutory declaration he made on 3 February 2006, in which he recorded his interest in items 5 (cash in the sum of $3,500) and 7 (cash in the sum of $950) of the freezing notice. Item 5 - Cash in the sum of $3,500 178 In his second affidavit, Dimche deposed that Ordena (with whom Dimche had been very close) died in March 2005; and that in Macedonian culture and as a practice in the Orthodox Church, on the anniversary of a person's death, a tombstone in memory of that person is placed upon the grave. 179 He further deposed that between the last week of November 2005 and the second week of December 2005, Zoran verbally asked Dimche if he could make a contribution towards the cost of Ordena's tombstone.112 In his second affidavit he deposed that he could not remember the exact figure which Zoran gave him as to the cost of the marble tombstone, but Dimche thought it was between $10,000 and $12,000.113 180 Dimche's evidence was that he recalled telling Zoran that he could pay $3,500 for the tombstone;114 and on 20 December 2005 he went to the Nollamara branch of the Commonwealth Bank and withdrew $4,000 in cash. The affidavit of David Martindale Shannon sworn on 10 October 2007 (attached to Dimche's first affidavit) supported the same. Mr Shannon, a solicitor employed by the Commonwealth Bank, attached to his affidavit what he described as 'a true copy of the savings account statement for account number 76 6137 208944 in the name of Dimche Nikoloski held in the Nollamara WA Branch of the Bank and in particular for the period 1 December 2005 to 30 December 2006.' That statement records a withdrawal of $4,000 on 20 December 2005. 181 As to the money withdrawn by Dimche, he deposed as follows:115 I remember that also on 20 December 2005. I met the First Plaintiff after lunch and gave him $3500 in cash. I retained $500 from the 112 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 10; affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 26 September 2011, par 4. 113 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 10. 114 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 11. 115 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, pars 13 - 14. -- 49 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 50 amount that I had earlier withdrawn from my bank for my personal expenses. This payment of $3.500 [sic] to the First Plaintiff was made for the specific purpose of part payment for the erection of a tombstone upon the grave or the First Plaintiff's mother in time for the anniversary of her death. 182 When cross-examined as to why he gave money to Zoran, Dimche's answers were not consistent. 183 The effect of Dimche's evidence was that while it was correct that Dimche had gone to his bank and had withdrawn funds, and it was correct that Dimche had given $3,500 to Zoran, it was not correct to say that the money was given to Zoran for use for the tombstone. When asked what the money was for, Dimche's evidence was 'I can't remember. I think he needed money, so I went to the bank and took it out, and yes.'116 184 Later in the course of cross-examination, Dimche's evidence was that he was 'pretty sure it was for the stone, yes'; 'He needed help'; the money was given as a loan; he was not sure what Zoran did with the money; and the headstone was completed.117 Item 7 - Cash in the sum of $950 185 None of the affidavits made by Dimche describe the basis for the interest he claimed in the property described at item 7 of the freezing notice (cash in the sum of $950). 186 In the course of his cross-examination, when asked how or why Dimche claimed an interest in that amount, Dimche's evidence was that he could not now recall.118 Moneys held by Zoran for Paul 187 In his first affidavit, Dimche deposed as follows:119 On or about February 2005, l witnessed my Aunty instructing Zoran Stanoevski to hold a total of about $20,000 in trust for Paul Stanoevski. At this time she was terminally ill and did not expect to live much longer. She wanted Paul to have this money as a wedding gift from his Grandparents on his future wedding day. 116 ts 90 (4 April 2023). 117 ts 90 - 91 (4 April 2023). 118 ts 92 (4 April 2023). 119 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 30 January 2011, par 3. -- 50 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 51 188 In his second affidavit, Dimche expanded upon this account as follows:120 With reference to paragraph 3 of my earlier affidavit dated 31 January 2011. I wish to add as a detail, that the conversation with my Aunty Ordona was at her house at 63 Fairfield Street Mt Hawthorn. I used to go and see her regularly and I know that she knew that she was dying, but at that time I remember observing her and noticing that she was still telling stories and jokes as she always had done and was still making food for my uncle Vojslav and knitting. However, she was talking to each member of the family to make it clear what her last wishes were. The evidence of Paul 189 Paul is Zoran's son, the grandson of Vojslav and Ordena, and is related to Dimche through Ordena. When he gave his evidence he was 37 years old.121 190 In the course of the proceeding Paul made two affidavits that were substantively in the same terms. The first was sworn on 5 March 2009 and the second was sworn on 30 March 2009. To both he attached three documents marked 'PS1', 'PS5' and 'PS6'. Paul's affidavit stood as his evidence in chief,122 together with the contents of Paul's unsworn affidavit dated February 2009 (his second affidavit), which was filed on 18 October 2021 and was adopted by Paul as his evidence.123 191 Set out below is an overview of Paul's evidence. Where his account is supported by documentary evidence, I have recorded the same. Item 4 - Cash in the sum of $2,210 192 Item 4 of the freezing notice concerned cash in the amount of $2,210 that had been seized at the Balcatta property. 193 In his first affidavit, Paul deposed that this was money that Zoran was holding onto for Paul, and that he had been saving for the cost of his grandmother's tombstone.124 120 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 15. 121 ts 139 (5 April 2023). 122 Exhibit P3A; ts 119 (5 April 2023). 123 Exhibit P3B; ts 136 - 137 (5 April 2023). 124 Also addressed in the unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 10, PS3; and in the affidavit of P Stanoevski sworn on 3 March 2009, par 2. -- 51 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 52 194 I understood the State not to press for a declaration with respect to that seized property. Item 6 - Cash in the sum of $2,600 195 Item 6 of the freezing notice concerned cash in the amount of $2,600 that had been seized at the Balcatta property. 196 In his first affidavit, Paul deposed that this was money received by him for rental payments on his unit located at 62/64 Great Eastern Highway, Rivervale, and that his father was holding the money for him. 197 In his second affidavit (which at the hearing was adopted by Paul as part of his evidence in chief), Paul further addressed items 6 and 9 of the freezing notice, and stated that he has a copy of the paper that was wrapped around the money with $2,900 written on it. He attached to his second affidavit a copy of that wrapper.125 198 In the course of cross-examination, the effect of Paul's evidence was that the unit located at 62/64 Great Eastern Highway, Rivervale had been purchased as an investment property; that he had been the sole owner; that the property had since been sold; that the property had been leased but Paul could not recall for how many years it had been leased or whether a lease agreement had been signed; while Paul had maintained bank accounts in the relevant period, rent received from the lease of the unit was not deposited into a bank account; at the relevant time, Paul had been young and not good at saving; and Paul would give the rent to his father 'just to put aside'.126 199 As to Zoran holding money for Paul, Paul was asked a number of questions in the course of cross-examination, and his evidence is reproduced below:127 And was it – was there any other arrangements you had where your father kept money or was it just for this rent? --- He – I used to do it for everything that I needed. You know, I was always – I, you know, relied on my father to help me out. So from your affidavits which talk about the claim for the $2600, how do you know that this amount, the $2600 is the same amount that the police took from your father's house? --- No. You don't. All right. 125 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 11, PS4. 126 ts 137 - 138 (5 April 2023). 127 ts 138 (5 April 2023). -- 52 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 53 Item 9 - Cash in the sum of $300 200 Item 9 of the freezing notice concerned cash in the amount of $300 that had been seized from the Balcatta property. 201 In his first affidavit, Paul's evidence was that which he gave with respect to item 6. That is, Paul deposed that this was money received by him for rental payments on his unit located at 62/64 Great Eastern Highway, Rivervale, and that his father was holding the money for him. 202 As is recorded above, in the second affidavit (which at the hearing was adopted by Paul as part of his evidence in chief), Paul further addressed items 6 and 9 of the freezing notice, and stated that he has a copy of the paper that was wrapped around the money with $2,900 written on it, and he attached to his second affidavit a copy of that wrapper.128 203 While the State pressed for a declaration with respect to $2,600 of the bundle (the subject of item 6 of the freezing notice), I understood the State not to press for a declaration with respect to the property that had been identified as item 9. Item 12 - Commonwealth bank account 06 6117 5009 3309 (and item 1 on the State's case) 204 Paul addressed item 12 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and any and all interest payable on such money. 205 In his first affidavit, Paul deposed that this was money held on trust for him by his father. He explained as follows:129 The money came from a Commonwealth Savings account last numbers of which are 086 in name of my grandmother. It was the account into which she paid money to save up for me for when I grew up. The copy of the passport account I have is not very clear and I am unable to locate the original. The account at the Commonwealth was closed and the monies were paid into term deposit 6117 50093130 in name of grandmother and father on the 15 February 2005 and into 06 6117 50093309 on 6 April 2005 in name of father only. My grandmother 128 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 11, PS4. 129 Affidavit of P Stanoevski sworn on 30 March 2009, par 4. See also the unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 12, PS5. -- 53 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 54 died in 2005 and after her death the monies were put into an account in my father's sole name. It was put firstly in their joint names when my grandmother became ill and then into my fathers sole name when my grandmother died. 206 Paul attached to his affidavit a bundle of Commonwealth Bank records,130 which Paul said recorded the movement of money in the manner he described (as reproduced above). 207 In the course of cross-examination, Paul was asked how was it that he said these moneys were his. In response, Paul said:131 Because I was in the room when my grandmother said to my father that the money was there myself for when I, you know, obviously one day get married and maybe we will have kids or, you know, just for my future. 208 As to why the moneys were not paid to Paul, it was Paul's evidence that:132 Like I said before, I was young. There was no need for that money for me at the time and I was really bad at saving. So that was the main thing that it was to be with my father. And he would hold it for me for when I needed it. Item 16 - Commonwealth Bank term deposit account 06 6117 5009 1477 209 Paul addressed item 16 of the freezing notice, which concerned the: Money standing to the credit of Zoran STANOEVSKI in trust for Paul STANOEVSKI in Commonwealth Bank term deposit account 6117 500 91477 and any and all interest payable on such money. 210 The estimated value of the property (as was recorded in the freezing notice) was $15,500. 211 In his first affidavit, Paul deposed that this was money held on trust for him by his father. He explained as follows:133 The money came from account C/W Award Saver Account 06 6117 1007 4592 in name of my father as trustee for me, withdrawn on the 16 August 2004 and paid into term deposit 6117 500 91477 in the name 130 Affidavit of P Stanoevski sworn on 30 March 2009, par 4, PS5. 131 ts 138 (5 April 2023). 132 ts 139 (5 April 2023). 133 Affidavit of P Stanoevski sworn on 30 March 2009, par 5. -- 54 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 55 of my father as trustee for me. The account was where my birthday money, presents and money for odd jobs were paid into. 212 Paul attached to his first affidavit a further bundle of Commonwealth Bank records,134 which Paul said recorded the movement of money in the manner he had described. 213 In his second affidavit, Paul explained his claim over the same term deposit moneys in similar, but not identical terms.135 214 I understood the State not to press for a declaration with respect to the property that had been seized and described at item 16 of the freezing notice. Item 3 - The Balcatta property 215 In his second affidavit (which as is recorded above, at the hearing was adopted by Paul as part of his evidence in chief), Paul addressed item 3 of the freezing notice, and explained his interest in the Balcatta property. 216 It was Paul's evidence that his parents had separated when he was young and he lived with his mother after separation; in 2002, when he was 17 years of age, Paul returned to live with his father at the Balcatta property; and at that time, Zoran was receiving workers compensation payments as he had been injured at work. It was Paul's evidence that:136 When I returned to live with my father he said to me that if I paid the mortgage as much as I could then half of Castleton Street would be mine. My father told me that my uncle ZARKO STANOEVSKI owned half of Castleton Street. My father told me that Castleton Street was originally owned by my grandfather VOIJSLAV STANOEVSKI. He is still alive. My grandmother ORDENA STANOEVSKI has passed away. My father had moved into the house when he was first married to my mother over 20 years ago. My father told me that my grandfather put Castleton Street in my father's name. I agreed with him that I would pay the mortgage payments and did so until late last year. 217 As to Paul's employment status, Paul's evidence was as follows:137 I have been in full time employment continually since leaving school at age 17 years and a half in year 12 during 2002. I am a glazier and also work in cabinetmaking. Since I moving and making the agreement with 134 Affidavit of P Stanoevski sworn on 30 March 2009, par 5, PS6. 135 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 15, PS6. 136 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 4. 137 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 6. -- 55 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 56 my father referred to in paragraph 4 I paid the mortgage on Castleton Street most of my wages went on it. I also worked doing odd jobs whilst at school. When I first left school I worked at Mac Donald's and then did cleaning work for Band Z Cleaners before working as a glazier and a cabinet maker. 218 Paul attached to his second affidavit a further bundle of Westpac Bank deposit slips, which Paul said were '7 copy deposit slips for $500 dated 16 February 2006, 22 August 2006, 8 September 2006, 10 November 2006, 4 December 2006, 17 January 2007 and 15 February 2007.'138 Each record a $500 deposit to an account held by Zoran, being account number 037134 400041. 219 Paul also claimed to have paid for work to be done and materials supplied to the Balcatta property, which was described as follows:139 Two shower screens Supply and fit tiles to the bathroom Supply and fit kitchen cabinets and bench tops and to Supply and lay tiles to the kitchen and living area. I also paid for Supply and fit carpets in three bedrooms. 220 As to the same, Paul's evidence was that Zoran had arranged for the work and materials, and paid for it from the money in Paul's account; and Paul agreed for the work and materials to be paid for from his account as he expected to have half of the Balcatta property, and he lived there and it made it more pleasant.140 221 Paul attached to his second affidavit a further bundle of Commonwealth Bank statements from which he said the payments were made for the material and works to the Balcatta property, although he acknowledged that he could not now distinguish which payment was for which item.141 The evidence of Vojslav 222 Vojslav's affidavit sworn on 15 May 2009 stood as his evidence in chief.142 Fourteen documents were attached to Vojslav's affidavit marked 'VS-1' to 'VS-14'. In the course of the hearing Vojslav was 138 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 7, PS1. 139 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 8. See also ts 140 - 141 (5 April 2023). 140 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 9. 141 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 9, PS2. 142 Exhibit P4A; ts 110 (5 April 2023). -- 56 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 57 cross-examined. His evidence was taken with the assistance of a Macedonian translator.143 223 Set out below is an overview of Vojslav's evidence. Where his account is supported by documentary evidence, I have recorded the same. Connection to the plaintiffs 224 Vojslav and his late wife, Ordena, had during their marriage two sons, Zoran (the plaintiff) and Zarko. Ordena died in 2005. 225 I understood from the evidence given by Vojslav in the course of the hearing that he was born in 1940 and was then 83 years of age.144 Further, I understood that since he made his affidavit, his son Zarko had passed away.145 The purchase of the Balcatta property in 1984 and financial contributions made by Vojslav 226 On 10 November 1984 Zoran married Vesna (née Peceska), and on 27 December 1984 Zoran and Vesna became the registered owners of the Balcatta property.146 227 Vojslav deposed that the Balcatta property was purchased for $81,000,147 with Zoran contributing $51,000 to the purchase price and the outstanding balance having been met by a loan taken by Zoran and Vesna from Westpac in the sum of $30,000 which was secured by mortgage over the Balcatta property.148 (In contrast to the evidence of Zoran, Vojslav did not record that he and Ordena had contributed $20,000 to the purchase price of the Balcatta property by way of loan.)149 228 Sometime after they purchased the Balcatta property, Zoran and Vesna became unemployed and were no longer able to meet the 143 The Court record contains an affidavit sworn on 5 June 2009 by Suzana Gligorova, a NAATI Accredited Translator in Macedonian/English languages, which described the process by which Vojslav's affidavit was translated from English to Macedonian and subsequently sworn by Vojslav on 15 May 2009. 144 ts 66 (4 April 2023). 145 ts 63 (4 April 2023). 146 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, pars 4 - 5, VS-1 (Certificate of title for the Balcatta property, page 13). 147 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 6, VS-2 (Transfer of land registered 27 December 1984, page 14). 148 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 6, VS-3 (Mortgage registered on 27 December 1984). 149 See [104] above. -- 57 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 58 mortgage repayments. Ordena and Vojslav agreed to meet the mortgage repayments on the Balcatta property on behalf of Zoran and Vesna 'on the condition that they paid back this money when they had the means to do so'. Vojslav further deposed that Zoran had told him that he would pay back this money as soon as he was able to.150 229 Ordena and Vojslav made repayments towards the Balcatta property mortgage during the course of 1985. 230 In the latter part of 1985, Vojslav agreed to enter into a loan agreement with Zoran and Vesna to assist them with their finances. Vojslav agreed that he would lend Zoran and Vesna $30,569.25 which constituted $30,493.00 as the principal sum and $76.25 to be paid in stamp duty. A loan agreement was prepared by J. P. D'Alessandro & Associates Solicitors and Vojslav attached to his affidavit the loan agreement which was dated 11 October 1985 and signed by Zoran, Vesna and Vojslav.151 231 Vojslav noted that the loan agreement provided that the Balcatta property would be security for the loan protected by caveat, and further deposed that on 1 November 1985 he lodged a caveat in his name.152 232 Vojslav deposed that between 1985 and 1987 he and Ordena continued to meet the mortgage repayments on the Balcatta property. He deposed that Zoran and Vesna did not use the money loaned under the loan agreement to pay the mortgage repayments, but instead this money was used to meet their general living expenses. 233 Vojslav deposed that the Balcatta property mortgage repayments varied between $305 and $365 per month, and that the payments made by Ordena and Vojslav towards the Balcatta property mortgage came to a total of $8,220. Vojslav attached to his affidavit copies of deposit receipts which recorded various payments made.153 234 Vojslav deposed that he also paid other expenses associated with the Balcatta property between 1984 and 1987, and attached to his affidavit receipts for payments that came to a total sum of $5,993.80.154 150 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 7. 151 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 9, VS-4 (Loan agreement dated 11 October 1985). 152 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 10, VS-5 (Caveat D139674 lodged on 1 November 1985). 153 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-6 (Receipts of moneys paid towards the mortgage). 154 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 15, VS-7 (Receipts of moneys paid towards other expenses). -- 58 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 59 235 Zoran and Vesna did not repay the money paid by Ordena and Vojslav towards the Balcatta property mortgage or the amount Vojslav loaned to them under the loan agreement. The transfer of the Balcatta property to Vojslav and Ordena in 1987 236 On 17 August 1987 Ordena and Vojslav became the registered owners of the Balcatta property after it was transferred to them by Zoran and Vesna. It was transferred for consideration expressed as $80,000, of which $6,000 was allocated to chattels. Vojslav deposed that '[t]his sum was used for the purposes of stamp duty only, and no money changed hands'.155 237 Ordena and Vojslav were able to discharge the existing mortgage on the Balcatta property by taking out a new mortgage in the sum of $30,000. The original mortgage was discharged and the new mortgage was registered on 17 August 1987.156 238 Ordena and Vojslav were able to raise sufficient funds so as to discharge their mortgage on 25 May 1988. Family Court proceedings in 1989 239 In 1989 there were proceedings on foot in the Family Court following the breakdown of Zoran and Vesna's marriage. Vojslav deposed that he understood that in the course of the Family Court proceedings, Vesna signed a statutory declaration which stated she had not previously been aware that the Balcatta property had been transferred to Vojslav and Ordena's names, and that on 24 January 1989 Vesna lodged a caveat over the Balcatta property.157 240 As to Vesna's claim, Vojslav deposed that it was his 'belief that Vesna was fully aware of the 1987 transfer of [the Balcatta property] because of the conversations Ordena and I had with both her and Zoran …' as were described in his affidavit.158 241 The Family Court proceedings were settled by way of a one off payment to Vesna in the sum of $15,000. As to that payment Vojslav 155 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 18, VS-8 (Transfer of land D539298). 156 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-9 (Mortgage D539299 in favour of Westpac dated 17 August 1987). 157 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-10 (the statutory declaration made by Vesna on 20 January 1987), VS-11 (Caveat E000497 lodged by Vesna dated 20 January 1987). 158 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 22. -- 59 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 60 deposed that he and Zoran discussed how this amount would be paid and Vojslav agreed to pay Vesna on Zoran's behalf.159 Transfer of the Balcatta property in 1990 to Zoran 242 Ordena and Vojslav transferred the Balcatta property back to Zoran, which transfer was dated 15 October 1990 and was registered on 22 November 1990.160 243 As to the transfer, Vojslav deposed that by this time Zoran was in a more stable financial position and was running his own security business. Vojslav's evidence was that it had been Vojslav's suggestion that the Balcatta property be transferred into Zoran's name, as Vojslav thought this would help Zoran get back on his feet. 244 Vojslav also deposed that he and Ordena decided to transfer the Balcatta property to Zoran on the understanding that Zoran would reside at the property and control it; and that he discussed this with Zoran and agreed that it would be appropriate for the title to be in Zoran's sole name so that Zoran would have capacity to borrow against it. 245 Vojslav deposed that in the course of his discussions with Zoran, Zoran had expressed a desire to re-mortgage the Balcatta property so that he could inject funds into his business interests and in that way make enough money from his business to pay back the money he owed to Ordena and Vojslav, and Vojslav further deposed that it was on this basis that Vojslav explained to Zoran that Ordena and Vojslav were transferring the property to him.161 246 Vojslav was cross-examined as to the circumstances in which the Balcatta property came to be transferred to Zoran in 1990. 159 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-12 (the cheque made payable to Vesna in the sum of $15,000 dated 15 September 1989). 160 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, pars 24 and 31, VS-13 (Transfer E493757 dated 15 October 1990). 161 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 26. -- 60 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 61 247 In the course of cross-examination counsel for the State read the passage of Vojslav's affidavit summarised at [245] above to Vojslav,162 and asked Vojslav if it was correct. Vojslav's response was as follows:163 I can't remember about the statement. The only thing I know that transfer the house to his name. 248 Later in the course of cross-examination, Vojslav accepted that he did not recall any agreement he had with Zoran in 1990 about the Balcatta property, stating that:164 I only transferred the house, that's all. 249 In his affidavit, Vojslav dealt further with the money owed to Ordena and Vojslav. Vojslav deposed as follows:165 Ordena and I discussed with Zoran the amount owed to us. I said to Zoran 'I consider the amount you owe us to include mortgage repayments in the sum of $8,220 and other expenses totalling $5,993.80 paid between 1984 and 1987, the $30,569.25 loaned under the Loan Agreement in 1985, the $30,000 taken out by way of a mortgage in 1987 and the $15,000 which was paid to Vesna in 1989, totalling $89,783.05' or words to that effect. Zoran said words to the effect 'that is correct'. 250 Vojslav also deposed that in the course of further discussions, Vojslav said to Zoran:166 'On transferring the property back to you, and whilst the $89,783.05 remains outstanding, interest will accrue on this amount at a rate of 10% per annum' (or words to that effect). 251 Vojslav deposed that Ordena, Zoran and Vojslav discussed what should happen in the event Zoran sold the Balcatta property, and Vojslav recounted as follows:167 I said 'If you sell the property Ordena and I are to be reimbursed the $89,783.05 plus interest from the proceeds of sale. The remainder of the proceeds are to be divided between Zoran and our youngest son, Zarko' (or words to that effect). It was my understanding that Ordena and I 162 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 26. 163 ts 62 (4 April 2023). 164 ts 64 (4 April 2023). 165 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 27. 166 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 28. 167 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 29. -- 61 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 62 were transferring the property to Zoran on these terms. Zoran agreed to this. 252 Vojslav deposed that this agreement was made verbally and was not recorded in writing. He also deposed that he did not consider a formal contract to be necessary as he and Ordena were transferring the Balcatta property to their son, with no other parties involved, and that it was not uncommon in Macedonian culture for such an agreement to take place in the absence of any written contract. 253 The transfer of land form lodged at Landgate recorded the consideration for the transfer as '[n]atural love and affection'.168 In the course of cross-examination, Vojslav's evidence was that Zoran did not pay him any money in 1990 as part of that transaction.169 When asked if the transfer of the Balcatta property was intended as a gift, Vojslav's evidence was as follows:170 Originally it was in his name, but I had to go on pension, and that's why. That was before pension – I go to pension. 254 Shortly later when Vojslav was asked why he decided to transfer the Balcatta property to Zoran in 1990, Vojslav answered as follows:171 I decided because it was paid off. … I was paying for that. 255 While Vojslav in his affidavit acknowledged the notation on the transfer of land form, he deposed that it was not his intention to gift the Balcatta property to Zoran, because Zoran owed Ordena and Vojslav a considerable amount of money, which at the time of the transfer had not yet been repaid.172 256 Vojslav deposed that upon the Balcatta property being transferred, Zoran did not remortgage the Balcatta property as he said he would, and in fact did not do so until 2003. Vojslav further deposed that during this time he and Ordena did not ask Zoran to repay the money he owed to them, as Vojslav was aware the equity in the Balcatta property was 168 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-13 (Transfer E493757 dated 15 October 1990). 169 ts 60 (4 April 2023). 170 ts 60 (4 April 2023). 171 ts 61 (4 April 2023). 172 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 32. -- 62 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 63 increasing over time and would be sufficient to cover Zoran's debt once the property was sold. 257 In the circumstances (summarised above) Vojslav deposed that he believed that he continued to have an interest in the Balcatta property to the extent of $89,783.05, plus interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran.173 258 In the course of cross-examination, when asked if he had asked to be repaid, the effect of Vojslav's evidence was that he had asked many times.174 When asked why he was not repaid when Zoran mortgaged the Balcatta property, the effect of Vojslav's evidence was that he did not know it had been remortgaged.175 259 In the course of his evidence Vojslav acknowledged that the Balcatta property was Zoran's now.176 However, he also gave evidence to the effect that if the Balcatta property were to be leased, Vojslav would collect the rent; that Zoran could not sell the Balcatta property without Vojslav's permission; and that Vojslav considered that he would get to have a say in what happened with the Balcatta property.177 Vojslav's earlier affidavit 260 On 8 February 2008 Vojslav made an affidavit which appeared to have been prepared for the purposes of the sentencing of Zoran in the criminal proceedings. A copy of that affidavit was attached to his affidavit sworn on 15 May 2009 (which stood as his evidence in chief in this proceeding).178 261 In his 2008 affidavit, Vojslav had deposed to the circumstances in which the Balcatta property came to be transferred to Zoran by Vojslav and Ordena in 1990. In that affidavit among other things Vojslav had deposed as follows:179 2. In 1984 my wife and I purchased a property located at 55 Castleton Street Balcatta Western Australia 6021 ("the property"). 173 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 36. 174 ts 64 (4 April 2023). 175 ts 64 (4 April 2023). 176 ts 65 (4 April 2023). 177 ts 65 - 66 (4 April 2023). 178 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-14 (Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 8 February 2008). 179 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn 15 May 2009, VS-14 (page 73). -- 63 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 64 3. My wife and I purchased the property as an investment in order to leave it to our two children. 4. In 1990 my wife and I gifted the property to my eldest son ZORAN STANOEVSKI. 5. I instructed ZORAN that upon any future sale of the property he was to share in any profits arising from the sale equally with his younger brother ZARKO STANOEVSKI. 262 As to that earlier affidavit, in Vojslav's affidavit sworn on 15 May 2009, Vojslav deposed as follows:180 My first language is Macedonian and my capacity to speak, read and write English is limited. I signed this affidavit in the absence of a translator and did not fully understand its content. Now that I have had the affidavit explained to me, I do not agree that it accurately reflects my intention when Ordena and I transferred 55 Castleton Street back to Zoran. At no time did I intend to gift the property to Zoran. Determination 263 This was a civil proceeding,181 and the Court was required to make findings of fact on the balance of probabilities.182 264 On the evidence before the Court, I was satisfied that the State established, on the balance of probabilities, the first three matters identified at [52] above. That is, the State established, on the balance of probabilities, that: 1. on 23 October 2007, after a trial in the District Court, Zoran was convicted under s 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act of one count of supplying a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) and two counts of selling it to another, committed on 12, 16 and 18 December 2005,183 and on 19 February 2008 Zoran was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A of the Misuse of Drugs Act;184 180 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn 15 May 2009, par 35. 181 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 102(1). 182 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 102(2)(d). 183 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 12, JCH10. 184 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 12, JCH9. -- 64 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 65 2. each offence was punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years,185 and each offence was therefore a 'confiscation offence';186 and 3. the offences (committed on 12, 16 and 18 December 2005), were committed after the commencement of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, that is, after 1 January 2001. 265 As to the fourth and fifth matters identified at [52] above, I then turned to consider the evidence in respect to each item that remained in dispute between the parties. 266 As is recorded above, in light of the statutory framework, it was the State's position that the key issue for determination in this matter was whether the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property the subject of the State's application for a declaration of confiscation was owned, effectively controlled or given away at any time by Zoran at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker.187 Further, counsel for the State made plain that the State did not allege that any of the property caught within the ambit of the freezing notice was effectively controlled or given away by Zoran. Rather, it was the State's position that the property was owned by Zoran (referring to the meaning of 'owner' as prescribed in the glossary to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act).188 267 I proceeded on the basis that, pursuant to s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, all the property which was owned or effectively controlled by Zoran at the time of the declaration was made and all the property that Zoran gave away at any time before the declaration was made, had been confiscated to the State; and (in light of the position adopted by the State), the key issue for determination was whether the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property the subject of the State's application for a declaration of confiscation was owned by Zoran at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker.189 268 While not matters of controversy, I record that I also was satisfied that the freezing notice was valid (s 34(3), s 35 of the Criminal 185 Misuse of Drugs Act s 34(1)(aa). 186 By operation of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 141(1)(a). 187 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 4. 188 ts 46, 51 (4 April 2023). 189 Campana v The State of Western Australia [38] - [41] (Jenkins J); Whittle v The State of Western Australia [36] (Allanson J); and Ranford v The State of Western Australia [22] (Edelman J). -- 65 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 66 Property Confiscation Act); that it was served on all necessary persons and filed with the Court (as required by s 36 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act); and that a memorial of the issue of the freezing notice was registered with the Registrar of Titles (as required by s 38(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act).190 Item 1 - Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only (formerly item 12 - Commonwealth Bank account 06 6117 5009 3309) 269 As is recorded above, the State sought a declaration that money standing to the credit of Zoran in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020, had been confiscated. Item 1 of the freezing notice was a 'catch all', in that the description of property within that item was '[a]ll or any property that is owned and/or effectively controlled by the Person [Zoran Stanoevski] (other than property referred to in Schedule 4).' 270 It was the State's position that the money standing to Zoran's credit in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020, originated from Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309, which had been frozen (freezing notice item 12). 271 As is recorded above, Paul claimed an interest in the money standing to the credit of Zoran in Commonwealth Bank account 06 6117 5009 3309 (freezing notice item 12), and Zoran and Dimche supported that claim. 272 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, including the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; the affidavit evidence of Ms Lindsay; the affidavit evidence of Zoran, Paul and Dimche, and their oral evidence. I found as follows. Findings 273 Zoran is the sole account holder of Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544.191 190 As to the registration of a memorial of the issue of the freezing notice, see affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-1. 191 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 13. -- 66 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 67 274 A restraint was placed on Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 on the basis that it contained funds that had been withdrawn from the Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309.192 275 Due to the operation of the Bankwest systems, the entire balance of Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 was restrained, and not just an amount equal to what had been the balance of the Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309.193 276 The money standing to Zoran's credit in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, and the interest since accrued on that sum, originated from Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309, which account had been frozen (freezing notice item 12).194 277 Zoran had been the sole account holder of Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309. The account was a term deposit account, which was opened on about 5 or 6 April 2006 when a deposit of $20,000 was made.195 278 On 21 December 2005 a restraint was placed on the Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 in its entirety following the Bank's receipt of the freezing notice. 279 Despite the restraint that had been placed, on 5 May 2020 the Commonwealth Bank term deposit account number 06 6117 5009 3309 was closed when the account matured and a bank cheque (number 659897) was made payable to Zoran, drawn from the funds in the matured account in the sum of $31,013.46.196 280 The same bank cheque was presented to Bankwest on 18 May 2020 and the funds were deposited to Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544. $31,013.46 was credited to that account.197 281 It was the State's position that Zoran was the sole account holder of both Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and 192 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 15. 193 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 15. 194 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 9. 195 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 16(d), JCH12, JCH16; affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 8; affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 48, ZS14. 196 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, pars 10 - 11, attachments A and B. 197 Affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, pars 13 - 14, attachment C. -- 67 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 68 Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544, and on the evidence adduced on behalf of the State, the Court should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the money standing to the credit of Zoran in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 was owned by Zoran, to the extent of $31,013.46 only. Further, that that sum together with any interest that had accrued thereon from 18 May 2020, had been confiscated. 282 The evidence of Zoran, Paul and Dimche addressed the source and ownership of the $20,000 that was deposited into Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 on about 5 or 6 April 2006. As to their evidence, I accepted as follows. 283 Ordena had held Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 5002056 solely in her name. Zoran had attached to his affidavit a copy of what he described as being the last page of Ordena's passbook for that account.198 While that page of the passbook does not record the date Ordena's account was opened, it records that on 15 February 2005 the sum of $21,974.55 was withdrawn, leaving a nil balance. 284 On 15 February 2005 a term deposit account with the Commonwealth Bank was opened in the name of Ordena and Zoran. Zoran attached to his affidavit a copy of a Commonwealth Bank acknowledgment of deposit. The amount deposited into Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 was $20,000. The term deposit had a maturity date of 13 August 2005, and a rate of interest of 5.1%.199 285 Ordena died on 27 March 2005. Zoran's evidence at the hearing was that Ordena did not leave a will.200 There was no evidence to the contrary. Her death certificate recorded the cause of death as:201 Respiratory failure (weeks), Metastic thyroid cancer (years) (Contributory Cause) Renal failure, Recurrent pulmonary emboli (years) 286 On 5 or 6 April 2005 Zoran closed Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 before the maturity date of the term 198 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 52, ZS16. 199 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 48 - 49, ZS15. 200 ts 82 (4 April 2023). 201 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS12. -- 68 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 69 deposit. Total interest for the financial year ending 30 June 2005 had accrued in the amount of $139.72.202 287 After closing Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 (that had been held jointly by Zoran and Ordena), Zoran opened in his own name and was the sole account holder of Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309. The account was a term deposit account, which was opened on about 5 or 6 April 2006 when a deposit of $20,000 was made.203 288 There was sufficient documentary evidence to be satisfied that: (a) the money standing to Ordena's credit in Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 5002056 on about 15 February 2005 ($21,974.55) was withdrawn and $20,000 of that sum was then deposited into Ordena and Zoran's Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 on about 15 February 2005; (b) the money standing to Ordena and Zoran's credit in Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 on about 5 or 6 April 2005 ($20,000 plus interest less costs) was withdrawn by Zoran after Ordena's death, and $20,000 was then deposited into Zoran's Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 on about 5 or 6 April 2005; and (c) the money standing to Zoran's credit in Zoran's Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 ($31,013.46) was withdrawn by Zoran upon the maturity of that term deposit on about 5 May 2020 and deposited into Zoran's Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 on 18 May 2020. 289 There was no evidence that Zoran had contributed from his own funds to the money that had been standing to Ordena's credit in Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5002056. 290 Nevertheless, a person who deposits money in a bank on a joint account vests the right to the debt or the chose in action in the persons in whose name it is deposited, and it carries with it the legal right to title by survivorship.204 Presumably, Zoran was able to close Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 shortly after 202 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 51 and 56, ZS15 (page 108). 203 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 16(d), JCH12, JCH16; affidavit of D Lindsay sworn on 24 August 2021, par 8; affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 48, ZS14. 204 Russell v Scott [1936] HCA 34 (1936) 55 CLR 440, 448 (Starke J). -- 69 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 70 Ordena died under the principle of survivorship so that the money held in that account never formed part of Ordena's estate. While the State did not advocate for the same,205 having authorised the deposit of her own funds into an account to be held jointly with her son Zoran, the presumption of advancement may have applied so that it would be presumed that Ordena intended that Zoran receive an interest in the account as a gift. 291 In any event, there was no evidence to support a finding of a resulting trust in favour of Ordena and her estate with respect to the money in the jointly held account. 292 Absent any other beneficial interest in the money being established, upon Ordena's passing, Zoran held the legal right to the money in what had been a jointly held account, and then withdrew and invested the money in various term deposits, as he was entitled to do as owner. 293 Paul's claim to the money ultimately deposited into Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 depended upon equity and that a trust in favour of Paul had been created. 294 A trust must be defined with sufficient certainty if it is to be legally enforceable. It must be certain that the creator of the trust intended to impose an equitable obligation by way of trust on terms that are certain; that there was certainty as to the property, as well as the share of that property, that is the subject matter of the trust; and certainty as to the identity of the objects of the trust, that is to say, the beneficiaries or some appropriate impersonal purpose.206 295 The expression of an intention to create a trust can be written or oral.207 296 Zoran deposed that on 15 February 2005 Ordena had verbally instructed him to go to the bank and to put the money in her passbook account into Zoran's and her name jointly; and that she told him that this was money which she had saved for Paul's wedding.208 He further deposed that Paul and Ordena's relationship was a close one, and that 205 ts 161 (5 April 2023). 206 Kauter v Hilton [1953] HCA 95; (1953) 90 CLR 86, 97 - 98 (Dixon CJ, Williams & Fullagar JJ). 207 See Korda v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Limited [2015] HCA 6; (2015) 255 CLR 62 [5] (French CJ). 208 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 53. -- 70 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 71 on 15 February 2005 Ordena had shown him other items which were to be given to Paul at his wedding.209 297 Zoran's affidavit evidence as to Ordena's instruction did not reveal the intention on the part of Ordena to create a trust immediately in favour of Paul, and to declare herself and Zoran as trustees. It simply disclosed the purpose of her having saved the money held in her account. 298 In contrast, when Zoran was asked in the course of cross-examination about the differences between his affidavit evidence and that of Paul's, Zoran said:210 Well, she gave me the money to hold it for Paul. That was the savings she was actually saving for him. So before, actually, she deceased, she said, 'Make sure to keep that money, so when he gets married or when he has a family, to pass the money over to him.' 299 Further, in his first affidavit, Dimche deposed as follows:211 On or about February 2005, I witnessed my Aunty instructing Zoran Stanoevski to hold a total of about $20,000 in trust for Paul Stanoevski. At this time she was terminally ill and did not expect to live much longer. She wanted Paul to have this money as a wedding gift from his Grandparents on his future wedding day. 300 In the course of cross-examination, Paul was asked how was it that he said this money was his. In response, Paul said:212 Because I was in the room when my grandmother said to my father that the money was there myself for when I, you know, obviously one day get married and maybe we will have kids or, you know, just for my future. 301 As is recorded above, as to why the money was not paid to Paul, it was Paul's evidence that:213 Like I said before, I was young. There was no need for that money for me at the time and I was really bad at saving. So that was the main thing that it was to be with my father. And he would hold it for me for when I needed it. 209 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 54 - 55, ZS17. 210 ts 82 (4 April 2023). 211 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 30 January 2011, par 3. 212 ts 138 (5 April 2023). 213 ts 139 (5 April 2023). -- 71 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 72 302 In this case, the onus was on the State to establish that a particular item of property had been confiscated. In general, the onus of proving an intention to create a trust rests on the party who claims that a trust was created.214 303 The State submitted that the 'story' advanced by Paul and Zoran (which was supported by Dimche) was inherently incredible, particularly as the money was not transferred to Paul at an earlier stage but was held by Zoran for an indefinite period of time.215 304 A court will be suspicious of a statement made by a holder of rights in property after a disposition of the property has occurred, where the statement purports either to assert or deny the existence of a trust. This is because the statement is likely to be self-serving unless made against interest.216 But conduct, as opposed to statements, occurring after the disposition will not usually attract the same suspicion and can provide evidence establishing or contradicting an intention to create a trust.217 305 In determining whether an intention to create a trust was established, I weighed in the balance the following. 306 When Ordena instructed Zoran to withdraw the money standing to her credit in Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 5002056 on about 15 February 2005 ($21,974.55), she had already suffered from cancer for a number of years. The direction to withdraw money that had been held in her name alone and to deposit the same into a jointly held account was consistent with Ordena putting her affairs in order. 307 Zoran did deposit the money into term deposit accounts. He did not use any of the money to meet his own needs. This was conduct that supported a finding that Zoran held the money on trust. I also had regard to Paul's evidence as to why the money was not transferred to him. 308 Weighing against the existence of a trust, I noted as follows. 214 Thomson Reuters, Ford and Lee: The Law of Trusts (at 25 June 2026) [2.080] referring to Re Armstrong, deceased [1960] VR 202, 206 (Herring CJ); Flash Lighting Company Ltd v Australia Kunqian International Energy Co Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] VSC 711 [823]. 215 ts 161 - 162 (5 April 2023). 216 Thomson Reuters, Ford and Lee: The Law of Trusts (at 25 June 2026) [2.090] referring to Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley [1956] HCA 28; (1956) 95 CLR 353; Shephard v Cartwright [1954] UKHL 2; [1955] AC 431; Campos v Lopes [2021] QSC 42 [21], [25]. 217 Thomson Reuters, Ford and Lee: The Law of Trusts (at 25 June 2026) [2.090] referring to Trustees of Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278 [65]. -- 72 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 73 309 The evidence of Zoran and Paul, supported by Dimche was self-serving. If the money was property owned by Zoran, it was confiscated. 310 There was no documentary evidence which supported the account of Zoran, Paul and Dimche as to Ordena's intention regarding the beneficial ownership of the moneys. 311 There was also no direct evidence from Ordena as to her intention regarding the beneficial ownership of the money.218 312 Before her death, Ordena had held a bank account which had recorded it was held in trust for Paul.219 In contrast, Ordena's Commonwealth Bank account number 6117 5002056 was not expressly held by Ordena in trust for Paul. 313 When Zoran opened Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 on Ordena's direction in his and Ordena's joint names, it was not opened so as to record that Zoran and Ordena held the account as trustees for Paul. 314 Further, Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 and Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 were opened by Zoran in Zoran's name, and not in the name of Zoran as trustee for Paul. 315 At the same time as the money standing to Ordena and Zoran's credit in Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3130 was withdrawn by Zoran after Ordena's death, and $20,000 was then deposited into Zoran's Commonwealth Bank account number 06 6117 5009 3309 on about 5 or 6 April 2005, Zoran opened other bank accounts in his name as trustee for Paul. 316 On 5 April 2005 Zoran opened an account with the Commonwealth Bank (being account number 06 6117 1013 2414), into which he deposited $5,012.90.220 The account was opened in the name 'Zoran Stanoevski in trust for Paul Stanoevski'. Zoran deposed that the account held funds that were transferred from an account that had been Ordena's, to which he had been a signatory, being Commonwealth Bank account 06 6117 1007 4584.221 (The first statement recorded that that account had been held by 'Droena Stanoeski in trust for 218 Defendant's submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 35. 219 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 40, ZS10. 220 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS9 (page 56). 221 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 40, ZS10. -- 73 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 74 Paul Stanoeski',222 subsequent statements recorded that the account was held by 'Oroena Stanoeski in trust for Paul Stanoeski'.223) 317 There was no explanation for the different approach adopted by Zoran when opening bank accounts purportedly on trust for Paul. 318 After careful consideration of the evidence and giving due consideration to the matters identified at [309] to [317] above, I was not satisfied that a trust was created in favour of Paul by Ordena. I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020, was owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 3 - The Balcatta property 319 The State sought a declaration that Zoran's interest in the Balcatta property had been confiscated to the State. It was the State's position that the Balcatta property was owned by Zoran (referring to the meaning of 'owner' as prescribed in the glossary to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act). 320 Zoran is the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property,224 and was the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property on 19 February 2008 when the drug trafficker declaration was made. As was observed on behalf of the State, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it may be presumed that Zoran was on 19 February 2008 the full beneficial owner of the Balcatta property.225 321 The hearing proceeded on the basis that if an innocent person has an equitable interest in 'property' as defined in the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, and that interest is sufficient to satisfy the definition of 'owner' under the Act, then that equitable interest is not subject to confiscation. Only the interest of the drug trafficker will have been confiscated.226 222 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 40, ZS10 (page 73). 223 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 40, ZS10 (pages 74 - 89). 224 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH11; defendant's supplementary submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 6. 225 ts 48 (4 April 2023), citing Nelson v Nelson [1995] HCA 25; (1995) 184 CLR 538. 226 See for example Smith v The State of Western Australia; Barker v The Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) [2011] WASC 299; Whittle v The State of Western Australia [40]. -- 74 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 75 322 Vojslav claimed an interest in the Balcatta property to the extent of $89,783.05, plus interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran (which transfer was dated 15 October 1990 and was registered on 22 November 1990). There was no evidence of the value of the Balcatta property at the hearing of the application but counsel for Vojslav maintained that the value would be less than the amount now owed to Vojslav by Zoran after the application of interest.227 323 Zoran supported Vojslav's claim (albeit when Zoran made his statutory declaration in December 2005 he declared that Paul may have an interest in the Balcatta property and made no mention of Vojslav).228 324 As to Paul, while he did not clearly record that he pressed a claim to the Balcatta property in the outline of submissions that he filed in advance of the hearing,229 in his statutory declaration made on 3 February 2006 he did declare that he held an interest,230 and he addressed the same in his second unsworn affidavit (which at the hearing was adopted by Paul as part of his evidence in chief). In the course of the hearing Paul indicated that he wished to press a claim with respect to the Balcatta property, and the hearing proceeded on that basis.231 325 As to Dimche, in the statutory declaration he made in December 2005, Dimche did not declare that he had an interest in the Balcatta property, rather he declared that Paul may have an interest in the Balcatta property.232 The hearing proceeded on the basis that Dimche's claim was limited to items 5 and 7 of the freezing notice.233 However, the submissions filed on behalf of Dimche suggested that he may have pressed a claim against the Balcatta property, to the extent that moneys he said he had provided to Zoran had been secured by a caveat. A copy of a caveat dated 1 May 2006 was attached to Dimche's first affidavit.234 For completeness I have addressed Dimche's evidence in these reasons. 326 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the 227 ts 54 (4 April 2023), 146 - 147 (5 April 2023). 228 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. 229 Third plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022. 230 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH5. 231 ts 112 - 113 (5 April 2023). 232 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH6. 233 ts 90 (4 April 2023). 234 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 30 January 2011, Annexure 'C'. -- 75 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 76 Court, including the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; and the affidavit evidence of Zoran, Vojslav, Paul and Dimche, and their oral evidence. I found as follows. Findings 327 In their respective affidavits, Zoran and Vojslav deposed to the roles each played in the purchase and transfers of the Balcatta property over a 20 year period. Their respective accounts were, in the main, not challenged in cross-examination. Cross-examination largely concerned the circumstances of the transfer of the Balcatta property to Zoran in 1990. 328 Paul also deposed that he had made monetary contributions towards the repayment of money owed by Zoran to Westpac (which indebtedness had been secured by a mortgage over the Balcatta property that was granted by Zoran and registered in 2003), and to having paid for improvements that were made to the Balcatta property from about 2002, and the circumstances in which that occurred. The purchase of the Balcatta property in 1984 and financial contributions made by others, including Vojslav 329 The Balcatta property was purchased on 27 December 1984 by Zoran and his former spouse, Vesna, for $81,000 (which amount was inclusive of all costs, stamp duties and other incidental expenses). Part of the purchase price was met by a loan granted by Westpac in favour of Zoran and Vesna in the amount of $30,000, which was secured by a mortgage over the Balcatta property. 330 Vojslav deposed that Zoran paid $51,000 towards the purchase price of the Balcatta property, whereas Zoran deposed that only $21,000 was met from his own money, and the remainder borrowed, including by a loan from Westpac which was secured by a registered mortgage, and a loan from Vojslav and Ordena to Zoran and Vesna of about $20,000. 331 This difference in recollection did not need to be further considered as the $20,000 contribution to the purchase price that Zoran said was provided by way of a loan from Vojslav and Ordena was not a matter that either Zoran or Vojslav suggested grounded an interest by Vojslav in the Balcatta property (as moneys outstanding or otherwise). -- 76 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 77 Expenses related to the Balcatta property 332 Between 1984 and 1987, Vojslav paid for furniture, fittings and expenses for the Balcatta property. Vojslav attached to his affidavit receipts for payments that came to a total sum of $5,993.80.235 333 Zoran deposed that he and Vojslav had agreed that the payments made on his and Vesna's behalf for such expenses were by way of loan. In contrast, in his affidavit, Vojslav did not describe any conversation that was had, nor was it his evidence that an agreement was reached with Zoran or Vesna at the time the payments were made as to the basis on which Vojslav would meet the costs. 334 There was no evidence that the payments made were ever repaid by Zoran and Vesna. Mortgage repayments made during the period of 1985 to 1987 335 In about mid-1985 Zoran and Vesna were unable to meet their mortgage repayments to Westpac. Zoran asked his parents to meet the mortgage repayments for the Balcatta property, and Zoran agreed with Vojslav that Zoran would repay Vojslav when he was in a financial position to do so. Between 1985 and 1987 Vojslav and Ordena made numerous mortgage repayments on the Balcatta property, which payments came to a total of $8,220.236 336 There was no evidence that the payments made on behalf of Zoran and Vesna to Westpac were ever repaid to Vojslav and Ordena. 337 It was not suggested by Zoran or Vojslav that, at the time the mortgage repayments were made in the period of 1985 to 1987, that the making of those payments then grounded an interest in the Balcatta property, in favour of Vojslav. October 1985 loan 338 In October 1985 Zoran and Vesna borrowed further moneys from Vojslav, which was documented as a loan and which was secured by a caveat over the Balcatta property. A loan agreement was prepared by J. P. D'Alessandro & Associates Solicitors which was dated 11 October 1985 and was signed by Zoran, Vesna and Vojslav.237 By the loan 235 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-7 (Receipts of moneys paid towards other expenses). 236 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-6 (Receipts of moneys paid towards the mortgage). 237 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-4 (Loan agreement dated 11 October 1985). -- 77 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 78 agreement, Zoran and Vesna (as borrower) borrowed $30,569.25 from Vojslav (as lender), and the loan was secured by a caveat.238 339 The money advanced to Zoran and Vesna under the loan agreement was used to meet their general living expenses. 340 The loan agreement at cl 9(a) of its terms provided that the borrower by way of security charged and mortgaged in favour of the lender to secure repayment of the amount financed '[a]ll property both real and personal present and future which the Borrower acquires with or partly with the amount financed or any part thereof'.239 I accepted the position advanced by the State that as the money advanced was used for general living expenses, cl 9(a)(ii) of the loan agreement regarding the charging of future property was not engaged.240 341 Zoran and Vesna did not repay to Ordena and Vojslav the amount advanced under the loan agreement. The transfer of the Balcatta property to Vojslav and Ordena in 1987 342 On 17 August 1987 Ordena and Vojslav became the registered proprietors of the Balcatta property after it was transferred to them by Zoran and Vesna (although Vesna later declared that she had not been aware of the transfer).241 343 Zoran deposed that the Balcatta property was transferred into the names of his parents because they were the people who had primarily contributed to its purchase and were keeping up the mortgage payments. He deposed that it was also agreed with Vojslav and Ordena at the time that Zoran and Vesna could continue to reside in the Balcatta property rent free. 344 The Balcatta property was transferred for consideration expressed as $80,000, of which $6,000 was allocated to chattels. Vojslav deposed that '[t]his sum was used for the purposes of stamp duty only, and no money changed hands.'242 238 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 10, VS-5 (Caveat D139674 lodged 1 November 1985). 239 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-4 (Loan agreement) (page 32). 240 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 12. 241 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-10 (the statutory declaration made by Vesna on 20 January 1987). 242 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 18, VS-8 (Transfer of land D539298). -- 78 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 79 345 On Zoran's evidence, he had contributed $21,000 of his own money to the purchase price of the Balcatta property in December 1984. On Vojslav's evidence, Zoran's contribution had been $51,000 towards the purchase price of the Balcatta property. When the Balcatta property was transferred to Vojslav and Ordena in 1987, no money changed hands to adjust for the contribution that had been made by Zoran to the purchase of the Balcatta property (whatever that amount was). 346 While money may not have been paid by Ordena and Vojslav to Zoran and Vesna for the purchase of the Balcatta property, the indebtedness of Zoran and Vesna to Westpac must have been met so as to secure the discharge of the mortgage that was registered in favour of Westpac. 347 I understood that Zoran and Vesna did not repay to Westpac all moneys they owed as at 17 August 1987 to secure the discharge of the mortgage over the Balcatta property. Instead, the mortgage was discharged in circumstances where Vojslav and Ordena borrowed $30,000 from Westpac, which Westpac secured by way of a mortgage registered over the Balcatta property after it was transferred to Vojslav and Ordena. As was recorded in the loan agreement, the purpose of the loan to Vojslav and Ordena was:243 To assist with the purchase of your Sons house at 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta 348 The mortgage which had secured Zoran and Vesna's indebtedness was discharged and the new mortgage in favour of Westpac which secured Vojslav and Ordena's indebtedness was registered on 17 August 1987.244 Discharge of Westpac mortgage in May 1988 349 By 25 May 1988 Ordena and Vojslav had repaid their indebtedness to Westpac and the mortgage on the Balcatta property in favour of Westpac was discharged. Family Court proceedings in 1989 350 Zoran and Vesna separated and later divorced. The financial settlement was completed by about September 1989, by which Zoran 243 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 19, VS-9 (Westpac loan agreement) (page 62). 244 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-9 (Mortgage D539299 in favour of Westpac dated 17 August 1987). -- 79 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 80 was to pay Vesna $15,000, which was paid by Vojslav on behalf of Zoran. 351 In the outline of submissions filed on behalf of Vojslav in advance of the hearing, it was noted that on 15 September 1989 Vojslav had paid Zoran's ex-wife a settlement sum of $15,000 'which was meant as a loan to [Zoran]'.245 However, neither Zoran nor Vojslav deposed to there having been any terms agreed between them when that payment was made. Vojslav's evidence was simply that he had agreed to pay Vesna on Zoran's behalf.246 352 There was no evidence that the payment made by Vojslav to Vesna on behalf of Zoran was ever repaid to Vojslav by Zoran. 353 In early 1989 Zoran moved out of the Balcatta property and into his parents' house, after which Vojslav and Ordena found tenants and received a rental income from the Balcatta property. 354 It was not asserted, and there was no evidence to suggest, that Zoran then held a beneficial interest in the Balcatta property. Transfer of the Balcatta property in 1990 to Zoran 355 By a transfer dated 15 October 1990, which was registered on 22 November 1990,247 Vojslav and Ordena transferred the Balcatta property to Zoran. Zoran became the sole registered proprietor at that time. 356 No money passed as between Zoran and Vojslav and Ordena for the transfer. The consideration for the transfer as was recorded in the transfer of land was '[n]atural love and affection'.248 357 In the affidavits which stood as the evidence in chief of Zoran and Vojslav in this proceeding, each described the circumstances in which the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran in 1990. Those affidavits were made many years after the events described. In the case of Zoran, his affidavit was made in October 2011, 21 years after the Balcatta property was transferred; and in the case of Vojslav, his affidavit was made 19 years after the event. There were no notes of the conversations on either side. There were differences in their respective accounts. As is noted above, both had also made other documents (in the case of Zoran 245 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 2(f). 246 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 23. 247 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-13 (Transfer E493757 dated 15 October 1990). 248 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-13 (Transfer E493757 dated 15 October 1990). -- 80 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 81 a declaration and in the case of Vojslav an affidavit) which were inconsistent with their affidavits made and relied upon for the purposes of this proceeding.249 358 It was Zoran's evidence that he approached Vojslav in about September or October 1990 to discuss his plans to open his own security business, and had enquired of Vojslav whether it would be possible to borrow money against any of Vojslav's assets.250 Further, Zoran deposed that by October 1990, Vojslav had stopped working because his health had declined and he had undergone an operation on his knees, and that Vojslav had informed him that he was approaching the end of his working life and did not want to take on liabilities, but under specific conditions he would be prepared to transfer the Balcatta property to Zoran. 359 It was Vojslav's evidence that it was his suggestion that the Balcatta property be transferred into Zoran's name, as Vojslav thought that this would help Zoran get back on his feet.251 360 I accepted that Vojslav and Ordena were motivated to assist Zoran financially. Throughout his adult life, Zoran had received significant financial assistance from his parents. Transferring the title of the Balcatta property into Zoran's sole name afforded Zoran an asset against which he would be able to secure future borrowings. 361 There was some suggestion in Vojslav's evidence of a motivation in addition to helping Zoran get back on his feet. At the hearing, Vojslav recalled having transferred the Balcatta property to Zoran in 1990, and one of his answers suggested that the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran for reasons linked to Vojslav's pension.252 Vojslav did not expand upon that evidence and he was not cross-examined in relation to the same. Conditions which attached to the transfer 362 The evidence of Vojslav and Zoran given for the purpose of this proceeding was consistent in so far as each maintained that the transfer of the Balcatta property to Zoran in 1990 was not as a gift. While counsel for Vojslav adopted Zoran's evidence as the basis upon which 249 As to Zoran see [124] - [126], and as to Vojslav see [260] - [262]. 250 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 26. 251 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 24. 252 ts 60 (4 April 2023). -- 81 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 82 the transfer occurred,253 there were some differences in their respective accounts. 363 Zoran's account of the agreement was in terms reproduced at [115] above.254 That is, Zoran deposed that the Balcatta property was transferred to him on the basis that he and Vojslav had agreed that Zoran would repay the amount owed as soon as possible, and the amount owed was about $90,000, which was comprised of the $30,000 loan made to Zoran and Vesna; $30,000 that had been owed by Zoran and Vesna to Westpac; $6,000 on account of furniture and fittings; the divorce settlement amount of $15,000; and the mortgage repayments made on Zoran and Vesna's behalf of almost $8,000. 364 Further, Zoran deposed that it had been agreed that while the Balcatta property was leased, Vojslav would receive any rent paid; that if anything should happen to Vojslav, Zoran would 'make over half the value of the property' to his brother Zarko; and Vojslav would continue to have an interest in the house until such time as Zoran had discharged his liabilities to Vojslav. 365 At the hearing, Vojslav did not recall the conversations had with Zoran which concerned the transfer of the Balcatta property. This may well have been a result of the effluxion of time. In the affidavit which stood as Vojslav's evidence in chief, Vojslav had deposed that the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran on the basis that he and Zoran had agreed that if Zoran were to sell the Balcatta property, Vojslav and Ordena would be reimbursed the $89,783.05 plus interest at 10% per annum from the proceeds of sale; and the remainder of the proceeds would be divided between Zoran and Zarko (or words to that effect).255 366 Vojslav's account of the agreement reached with Zoran in 1990 differed from Zoran's account in that Vojslav did not depose to there being an obligation on the part of Zoran to repay Vojslav before the Balcatta property was sold, or any entitlement on the part of Vojslav to receive rental income. 367 However, in the course of cross-examination, when Vojslav was asked if he had asked to be repaid, the effect of Vojslav's evidence was that he had asked many times.256 Further, while Vojslav acknowledged 253 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 17. 254 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 28. 255 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, pars 28 and 29. 256 ts 64 (4 April 2023). -- 82 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 83 that the Balcatta property was Zoran's,257 he also gave evidence to the effect that if the Balcatta property were to be leased, Vojslav would collect the rent; that Zoran could not sell the Balcatta property without Vojslav's permission; and that Vojslav considered that he would get to have a say in what happened with the Balcatta property.258 What transpired after the Balcatta property was transferred 368 While the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran in late 1990, until mid-1995 Zoran continued to live with his parents in their home. The Balcatta property remained tenanted, and Vojslav and Ordena continued to receive the rent paid by the Balcatta property tenants. This was not however supported by any documentary evidence, such as tax returns or otherwise. There was no basis to make a finding as to what quantum of rent was received. 369 While Vojslav and Ordena received the rent from the Balcatta property from when it was tenanted in about 1990 to 1995, the rental received was not applied in reduction of the debt owed to them by Zoran. As to why the rent was received by his parents, Zoran's evidence was '[b]ecause they owned the property. They were in control of the property.'259 370 The effect of Vojslav's evidence was that he did not know whether Zoran had remortgaged the Balcatta property after it was transferred to Zoran in 1990.260 371 Zoran's evidence was that he borrowed money in 2002 which he used to consolidate an earlier loan with ANZ which had been spent in making investments between 1998 and 2001 (which investments were not recovered).261 It was Zoran's evidence that by then he had abandoned his plan to build his own security business.262 372 On the certificate of title to the Balcatta property a mortgage in favour of Westpac was registered on 9 April 2003.263 Zoran used the Balcatta property as security to borrow money and granted a mortgage in favour of Westpac. 257 ts 65 (4 April 2023). 258 ts 65 - 66 (4 April 2023). 259 ts 80 (4 April 2023). 260 ts 64 (4 April 2023). 261 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS7, ZS8. 262 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, pars 36 and 37. 263 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH11; affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-1. -- 83 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 84 373 In the course of cross-examination Zoran explained that the debt owed to Vojslav was to be repaid by Zoran when he had the money to do so with interest,264 and Zoran accepted that it could have been repaid from income, savings or borrowings.265 That said, while Zoran borrowed money and mortgaged the Balcatta property in 2003 to assist with managing his debts, it was Zoran's evidence that he did not repay the debt owed to his parents with the money he borrowed as he was then concentrating on his business and he was not in a position to then borrow more to repay the debt with interest.266 I noted that there was an inconsistency in Zoran's evidence as to him having abandoned his plan to build his own security business (see [371] above) and his evidence that he was concentrating on his business. 374 After the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran, and Zoran had borrowed money using the Balcatta property as security, Paul made payments in reduction of the money owed by Zoran and paid for some improvements to the Balcatta property. In summary, Paul's evidence as to why he did so was because, when Paul returned to live with Zoran in the Balcatta property, Zoran told Paul that if Paul were to pay the mortgage as much as he could then half of the Balcatta property would be Paul's.267 Effective control 375 While it was acknowledged that Zoran was the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property when he was declared a drug trafficker, among other things, on behalf of Vojslav it was submitted that Vojslav had had effective control over the Balcatta property at all times from 15 October 1990,268 and it was Vojslav's position that the Balcatta property was effectively held for his ultimate benefit until the outstanding debt owed by Zoran to Vojslav was repaid.269 376 That submission was made in circumstances where on behalf of Vojslav, the release of frozen property pursuant to s 84(2) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act was advanced,270 which section provides as follows: 264 ts 79 (4 April 2023). 265 ts 80 (4 April 2023). 266 ts 81 (4 April 2023). 267 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 4 (reproduced at [216] above). 268 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, pars 5, 9(b), 12. 269 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 19. 270 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 21. -- 84 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 85 84. Other frozen property, release of … (2) The court may set aside a freezing notice issued for property under section 34(3) or a freezing order for property that was frozen under section 43(5) if the court finds that it is more likely than not that the person who is or will be charged with the offence does not own or effectively control the property, and has not at any time given it away. 377 It was not however the State's position that Zoran had 'effective control' in relation to the Balcatta property, as that term is defined in s 156 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. Rather, it was the State's position that the property was owned by Zoran (referring to the meaning of 'owner' as defined in the glossary to the Criminal Property Confiscation Act).271 In the circumstances, I turned to consider whether I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Balcatta property was owned by Zoran at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker - as was the State's position.272 Whether Vojslav holds an equitable interest in the Balcatta property 378 While it was acknowledged that Zoran was the sole registered proprietor of the Balcatta property when he was declared a drug trafficker, Vojslav claimed to hold an equitable interest in the Balcatta property by way of a presumed resulting trust,273 in circumstances where he maintained that the presumption of advancement did not arise.274 In the alternative, it was submitted that an equitable lien would be established in the circumstances of the agreement that was made by Zoran and Vojslav as to the basis upon which the Balcatta property was transferred.275 Presumed resulting trust - overview 379 It was Vojslav's position that he held an equitable interest in the Balcatta property by operation of a presumed resulting trust which arose by reason of him being a contributor of purchase money. The basis upon which that argument was advanced is explained below. 271 ts 46, 51 (4 April 2023). 272 As discussed at [42] and [43] above. See the defendant's submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 4, citing Campana v The State of Western Australia [38] - [41]; Whittle v The State of Western Australia [36]; and Ranford v The State of Western Australia [22]; ts 46, 51 (4 April 2023). 273 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, pars 5, 9(a), 12, 22 - 31. 274 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 26. 275 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 31. -- 85 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 86 380 A resulting trust may arise in varied circumstances. As was observed by Gordon J and Edelman J in Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation at [94], examples of resulting trusts that have been held to arise by operation of law, irrespective of any objective intention to create a trust, are trusts that arise upon the failure of an express trust or by a transfer of a person's legal rights without their consent or knowledge. Examples of resulting trusts that arise from objective intention to create a trust are trusts that arise in favour of a transferor of property ('voluntary conveyance resulting trust') or a contributor of purchase money ('purchase money resulting trust').276 381 For resulting trusts that arise from objective intention to create a trust, the strength of the presumption varies from case to case, and may be confirmed, rebutted or qualified by evidence of the intention of the transferor. Again, as was observed by Gordon J and Edelman J at [105]:277 The presumption of resulting trust – the standardised inference that allocates the onus of proof – serves the same function as a civil onus of proof and operates to resolve a factual contest when the relevant evidence is 'uninformative or truly equivocal'. It arises if there be a paucity of evidence as to an intention to declare a trust. Put in different terms, where the presumption arises, the existence of a resulting trust is an inference drawn in the absence of evidence when, for example, a purchaser of property causes it to be transferred to another or when a person contributes to the purchase of property which is registered in the name of another. But such an inference – of resulting trust – cannot arise where a plaintiff has led evidence that tends to establish an objective intention or the lack of an objective intention to create a trust. (footnotes omitted) 382 The objective intention of the parties is determined at the time when the trust was purportedly created. Apart from admissions against interest, the only evidence relevant and admissible as to the parties' objective intention is their acts and declarations before or at the time of the transaction or 'so immediately [thereafter] as to constitute a part of the transaction'. Subsequent events and conduct are otherwise not admissible.278 383 Unlike an express trust, resulting trusts are exempt from the statutory requirement that a declaration of trust respecting land, or any 276 Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [2022] HCA 34; (2022) 275 CLR 37 [94] (footnotes omitted). See also [12] (Kiefel CJ & Gleeson J). 277 See also Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [13], [19] - [22], [64], [66] - [67]. 278 Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [113], and the cases there cited including Calverley v Green [1984] HCA 81; (1984) 155 CLR 242, 262. Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [32] - [33]. -- 86 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 87 interest in land, must be manifested and proved by writing signed by the declarant of the trust.279 384 Where the legal title following a purchase is vested in a party to whom the person providing the purchase money is under an obligation to support, any presumed resulting trust in favour of the party who advances the funds for purchase does not arise. The presumption instead is that the property was vested as an absolute gift.280 385 The presumption of advancement applies in the case of gifts by a parent to a child (including an adult child), but like the presumption of a resulting trust, it may be rebutted by evidence of the parent's intention to hold the beneficial interest themselves. 386 A presumption is only that, a mere presumption. The presumption of advancement may be rebutted by showing, on the balance of probabilities, that the parent did not have the intention to gift. It is the parents' intention at the time of the transfer which is to be ascertained.281 387 For example, in Nelson v Nelson, the High Court held that a presumption of advancement may apply to favour the beneficial interests of an adult child. In that case, however, the presumption was rebutted by direct evidence that the mother's intention was that her adult child was to hold the beneficial interest for the mother. 388 Evidence that one party intended to make a gift, or to provide money to benefit a recipient party is admissible evidence of that character.282 389 In Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASC 333 at [63], Tottle J summarised the applicable legal principles as follows: (a) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a registered proprietor of real estate is presumed to own the equitable interest in it. The equitable estate follows the legal estate and is said to be 'at home' with the legal title.283 279 Property Law Act 1969 (WA) s 34. 280 See Calverley v Green (247, 256, 265, 267); Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [14] - [15], [65], [115]. 281 See Calverley v Green (246 - 251) (Gibbs CJ), cited in the defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 15. 282 See Calverley v Green (246) (Gibbs CJ); Atkinson v Festic (1990) DFC 95-089 (Ipp J), cited in Wilms v Wilms [2016] WASC 396 [158]. 283 Nelson v Nelson (547) (Deane & Gummow JJ). -- 87 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 88 (b) Where, however, a person purchases property in the name of another, or jointly with another, the legal title holder who has not provided the purchase money will only obtain a beneficial interest in the property where that is the intention of the purchaser.284 This principle was stated by Aickin J (with whom Mason, Murphy and Wilson JJ agreed) in Napier v Public Trustee (Western Australia) as follows:285 The law with respect to resulting trusts is not in doubt. Where property is transferred by one person into the name of another without consideration, and where a purchaser pays the vendor and directs him to transfer the property into the name of another person without consideration passing from that person, there is a presumption that the transferee holds the property upon trust for the transferor or the purchaser as the case may be. This proposition is subject to the exception that in the case of transfers to a wife or a child (including someone with respect to whom the transferor or purchaser stands in loco parentis) there is a presumption of advancement so that the beneficial as well as the legal interest will pass. Each of the presumptions may be rebutted by evidence. (citations omitted) (c) The court is concerned to ascertain the objective, manifest intention of the purchaser not an unexpressed subjective intention.286 (d) In ascertaining the true intention of the purchaser the court may admit evidence of the relationship between the parties and their acts and declarations before or at the time of the purchase, or so immediately after it that those acts or declarations constitute a part of the transaction - evidence of subsequent acts and declarations relating to a purchaser's intention is only admissible as admissions against the donor's interest.287 In Glynn v Commissioner of Stamp Duties Reynolds JA summarised this limitation on the evidence that is admissible as follows:288 The law is clear that the only admissible and relevant evidence (apart from admissions to which I will later refer) comprises the 284 Calverley v Green (246) (Gibbs CJ). 285 Napier v Public Trustee (Western Australia) (1980) 32 ALR 153, 158. 286 Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [2012] WASC 19 [98] (Edelman J) and the authorities there cited. 287 Calverley v Green (262) (Mason & Brennan JJ), citing Shephard v Cartwright (445); Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (365); Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th ed, 2016) [12.13]. 288 Glynn v Commissioner of Stamp Duties [1977] 2 NSWLR 673, 680, citing Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley. -- 88 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 89 acts and declarations of the parties before or at the time of the purchase, or so immediately thereafter as to constitute a part of the transaction. 'If that evidence is insufficient to rebut the presumption the beneficial gift, absolute or subject only to qualifications imposed upon it at the time, is complete and no subsequent changes of mind or dealings with the property inconsistent with the trust by the donor can as between himself and the donees alter the beneficial interest.' (citations omitted) (e) If the relationship between the purchaser and the person to whom the legal title of property is transferred is one which the law recognises as attracting the 'presumption of advancement' then there is no resulting trust in favour of the purchaser.289 One such relationship is the relationship between parents and a child including an adult child. Presumed resulting trust - Vojslav's position 390 On behalf of Vojslav it was argued that he had an equitable interest in the Balcatta property by virtue of a presumed purchase money resulting trust. It was noted on his behalf that a presumed resulting trust arises in favour of the purchaser, or in favour of two purchasers in the proportions in which they contributed the purchase money,290 and that the term 'contribution' is not merely limited to direct financial contribution but also extends to taking over a mortgage liability.291 391 Counsel for Vojslav noted that the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran unencumbered. However, before it was transferred to Zoran unencumbered, it had been encumbered by a mortgage that had been granted in favour of Westpac that had secured the indebtedness of Vojslav and Ordena.292 (This was a reference to the mortgage granted by Vojslav and Ordena in favour of Westpac which secured their indebtedness and which was registered on 17 August 1987.293) It was further noted that by 25 May 1988, Ordena and Vojslav 289 Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [98] (Edelman J) and the authorities there cited; Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th ed, 2016) [12.13]. 290 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 24, citing Calverley v Green (247). 291 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 24, citing Calverley v Green (245) (although the proper reference appears to be (256 - 258) (Mason & Brennan JJ). 292 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 25. 293 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-9 (Mortgage D539299 in favour of Westpac dated 17 August 1987). -- 89 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 90 had repaid their indebtedness to Westpac and the mortgage on the Balcatta property in favour of Westpac had been discharged.294 392 In the circumstances, the position advanced on behalf of Vojslav was as follows:295 Here, the [Balcatta property] was transferred to [Zoran] unencumbered. The [Balcatta property] was initially encumbered through a mortgage (I150923M) of $30,000.00 lodged by Westpac Savings Bank Ltd ('the Westpac Mortgage'): Certificate of Title, D539299. The Westpac Mortgage was later repaid by [Vojslav] on 25 May 1988, thereby discharging the mortgage: Certificate of Title, D762876. It is argued that [Vojslav's] act of paying off the Westpac Mortgage so that the [Balcatta property] could be transferred to [Zoran] unencumbered, constitutes a contribution of $30,000.00 towards the Property: Calverley v Green, 245. The principle of presumed resulting trust is subject to the exception created by a presumption of advancement: Calverley v Green. However, the presumption of advancement can be rebutted through evidence of clear intention (at the time of the transfer) that the contribution was not a gift: Calverley v Green, 251. As evidenced from the Agreement to transfer [Balcatta property] into [Zoran's] name, [Vojslav] had clear intentions that the $30,000.00 paid to discharge the Westpac Mortgage, was not a gift to [Zoran]. Rather, it was a contribution made to the [Balcatta property], that had to eventually be repaid back to [Vojslav]. Further, the benefit of receiving rental income from the [Balcatta property] in the meantime arguable denotes a commercial transaction involving an investment. Presumed resulting trust - the State's position 393 On behalf of the State it was submitted that there must be a contribution financially towards the acquisition of the real property such as to bring a claim within the principles identified in Calverley v Green - that is to establish a purchase money resulting trust; that 'acquisition' in this context means a direct financial contribution towards the purchase price at the time the real property was purchased or 'so immediately after it as to constitute a part of the transaction';296 that the alleged contribution must bear the character of purchase moneys; and that establishing on the balance of probabilities that a contribution of the requisite character has been made is a factual 294 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 25. 295 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, pars 25 - 26. While Calverley v Green (245) was cited, the proper reference appears to be (256 - 258) (Mason & Brennan JJ). 296 Calverley v Green (262) (Mason & Brennan JJ). -- 90 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 91 precondition to a successful assertion that there is a presumption of a resulting trust.297 394 It was further submitted that the transfer in the present case involved a transfer from father to son that attracted the presumption of advancement under the general law which has not been rebutted on the evidence.298 Presumed resulting trust - disposition 395 It was Vojslav's position that he held an equitable interest in the Balcatta property by operation of a presumed resulting trust which arose by reason of him being a contributor of purchase money. As is recorded at [392] above, it was Vojslav's contention that his act of repaying his debt of $30,000 to Westpac, which was secured by a mortgage over the Balcatta property in favour of Westpac 'so that the [Balcatta property] could be transferred to [Zoran] unencumbered', constituted a contribution of $30,000 towards the Balcatta property. 396 Vojslav relied upon the principles identified in Calverley v Green. I proceeded on the basis that there must be a contribution of purchase money towards the acquisition of the real property such as to bring a claim within the principles identified in Calverley v Green. I also accepted that payment of instalments due under a mortgage may be thought to be, or to be the equivalent of, the provision pro tanto of the purchase price of the property.299 397 In this case, a mortgage which had secured Zoran and Vesna's indebtedness to Westpac was discharged before the transfer of the Balcatta property to Vojslav and Ordena in 1987, and a new mortgage in favour of Westpac which secured Vojslav and Ordena's indebtedness was registered on 17 August 1987.300 The evidence was that by 25 May 1988 Ordena and Vojslav had repaid their indebtedness to Westpac and the mortgage on the Balcatta property in favour of Westpac was discharged. 297 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 22 March 2022, par 8, citing Calverley v Green (246, 253, 258, 264, 266 - 267); Sivritas v Sivritas (2008) 23 VR 349 [124]; Anderson v McPherson [No 2] [68]; Ong Lottwo Pty Ltd (in Liq) [2013] SASCFC 57; (2013) 116 SASR 280 [28] - [30]; Hamed v Elddin [2016] NSWCA 9 [23]. 298 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 22 March 2022, par 9; ts 152 (5 April 2023). 299 Calverley v Green (257). 300 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-9 (Mortgage D539299 in favour of Westpac dated 17 August 1987). -- 91 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 92 398 What in fact occurred here could not properly be characterised as, or to be the equivalent of, the provision pro tanto of the purchase price of the Balcatta property when it was transferred to Zoran in 1990. There were two separate transactions, in both time and purpose. Westpac had been paid in full by Vojslav and Ordena, and the Balcatta property had become unencumbered over 28 months before the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran. Further, there was no evidence that in May 1988 it was contemplated by Vojslav or Zoran that the Balcatta property would be transferred back to Zoran. 399 Calverley v Green did not concern a voluntary transfer of land by an existing owner. As was observed by Gibbs CJ, whether a resulting trust is presumed in such a case is not without its complications, but it was unnecessary to discuss the point in the context of the facts before the Court.301 Calverley v Green concerned a purchase money resulting trust, and it was on the basis of a purchase money resulting trust that Vojslav sought to establish an equitable interest in the Balcatta property. The transfer by Vojslav to Zoran was not one where Vojslav could properly be characterised as a contributor of purchase money and therefore Vojslav did not establish an equitable interest in the Balcatta property on the basis advanced. 400 For completeness I also noted that in addition to the flaw described above (which was determinative of the presumed purchase money resulting trust claim), there were other difficulties with Vojslav's claim to the Balcatta property. 401 In this case, both Zoran and Vojslav deposed to a conversation that was had between them before the transfer occurred in 1990, and the conditions said to have been imposed on the transfer by Vojslav, which were said to have been agreed. It was submitted on behalf of Vojslav that the evidence of Zoran and Vojslav as to the conversation they had had, and the understanding that was reached before the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran in 1990, was evidence of a 'definite intention' on behalf of Vojslav and Zoran that Vojslav would retain beneficial title. They each gave evidence that supported a finding that Vojslav intended to create a trust. 402 It was common ground as between Zoran and Vojslav that the agreement in October 1990 was made verbally and was not recorded in 301 Calverley v Green (249). See also the discussion of voluntary transfers of land in Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th ed, 2016) [12.20], particularly with respect to the operation of the Property Law Act s 38, s 39. -- 92 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 93 writing. Vojslav had deposed that he did not consider a formal contract to be necessary as he and Ordena were transferring the Balcatta property to their son, with no other parties involved, and that it was not uncommon in Macedonian culture for such an agreement to take place in the absence of any written contract. 403 Vojslav had provided support and financial assistance in various forms to Zoran throughout his adult life. The position Vojslav adopted with respect to his son in October 1990 differed to the position that was adopted with respect to his son and (then) daughter in law in October 1985 when Zoran and Vesna borrowed money from Vojslav, in so far as the earlier agreement was documented in an agreement prepared by a solicitor. However, on other occasions money was lent and financial support was provided to Zoran without being documented. Having regard to the nature of their relationship and the way Vojslav supported Zoran in adulthood, I did not consider the fact that the agreement in October 1990 was not recorded in writing to be a matter which weighed against accepting the evidence of Zoran and Vojslav. 404 As is recorded above, evidence of subsequent acts and declarations relating to a purchaser's intention is only admissible as admissions against the donor's interest.302 The evidence of Zoran and Vojslav with respect to the agreement reached in October 1990, and the interest claimed by Vojslav, was not consistent with other statements that were made after the transfer. As to subsequent acts and declarations, I noted as follows. 405 First, the granting of a mortgage by Zoran in favour of Westpac over the Balcatta property in 2003 without notice to Vojslav was conduct which supported the inference that the transfer of the Balcatta property was intended by Vojslav, Ordena and Zoran to be, and was made as a gift (that is, it was conduct which went against Vojslav's claimed interest). That said, the use of the Balcatta property as security was also consistent with what I accepted was Vojslav and Ordena's motivation at the time of transfer - to help Zoran get back on his feet. The transfer of the title to the Balcatta property into Zoran's sole name afforded Zoran an asset against which he would be able to secure future borrowings in circumstances where by reason of their age and health Vojslav and Ordena were not willing or as readily able to borrow and 302 Calverley v Green (262) (Mason & Brennan JJ), citing Shephard v Cartwright (445); Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (365); Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th ed, 2016) [12.13]. -- 93 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 94 service debt. Therefore, I did not consider this to be a matter that weighed against the interest claimed by Vojslav. 406 Secondly, in his statutory declaration, Zoran declared that Paul and Westpac may be 'interested parties' with respect to the Balcatta property - that is, persons with an interest in the Balcatta property that would enable them to succeed on an objection to the confiscation of the property, namely a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property.303 Zoran made no reference to Vojslav, and did not declare that Vojslav may be an interested party. 407 It was Zoran's evidence that he could not recall why Vojslav's interest was not recorded in the statutory declaration, and the effect of his evidence was that the omission was a mistake and that he did not have a lawyer acting for him at that time.304 While I was not prepared to discount the explanation proffered, the omission was a subsequent declaration that went against the finding of a resulting trust and I gave the omission some weight. 408 Thirdly, Vojslav had also made a subsequent statement that went against the finding of a resulting trust. In the affidavit made by Vojslav on 8 February 2008 for the purposes of Zoran's sentencing in the criminal proceeding, Vojslav gave a different account of the circumstances in which the transfer occurred, and among other things deposed that in 1990 he and his wife had gifted the Balcatta property to Zoran (which I noted was consistent with the description of the consideration for the transfer as was recorded by Vojslav and Zoran in the transfer of land), and had instructed Zoran that upon any future sale of the property Zoran was to share in any profits arising from the sale equally with his younger brother Zarko.305 409 In his affidavit made for the purposes of this proceeding (which stood as his evidence in chief), Vojslav disavowed the contents of his earlier affidavit, noting his limited command of English, that it had been prepared without the assistance of a translator, that he did not understand its contents. It was his evidence that at no time did he intend to gift the Balcatta property to Zoran.306 303 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 3 (Glossary); as was recorded in the freezing notice issued to Zoran under the heading 'Statutory Declaration', see affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH1 (page 16). 304 ts 78 (4 April 2023). 305 That account is reproduced at [261] of these reasons. 306 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, par 35; see also the fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 14. -- 94 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 95 410 In his earlier affidavit, Vojslav had also deposed that he and Ordena had in 1984 purchased the Balcatta property as an investment in order to leave it to his two children. Given the clear error contained in the earlier affidavit with respect to the purchase of the Balcatta property in 1984, and the cogent explanation proffered, I did not give weight to Vojslav's subsequent declaration against the finding of a resulting trust. 411 Evidence of subsequent acts and declarations relating to a purchaser's intention is only admissible as admissions against the donor's interest.307 Therefore, I did not for this purpose have regard to the evidence concerning the recovery of rent for the Balcatta property after it was transferred to Zoran in October 1990 (which was not supported by any documentary evidence by way of tax returns, pension adjustments, or otherwise). 412 Furthermore, there was cogent evidence of the intention by Vojslav to gift the Balcatta property to Zoran. Indeed, the transfer of land form lodged at Landgate recorded the consideration for the transfer as '[n]atural love and affection'. 413 In this regard, I also noted that the Balcatta property was transferred from Vojslav and Ordena to their adult child Zoran in circumstances where: (a) no money changed hands for the transfer of the Balcatta property to Zoran's name; (b) before and at the time of the transaction, Zoran and his parents shared a close familial bond, and consistently while an adult, Zoran had before the transaction regularly received significant financial assistance from his parents; (c) at the time of the transfer, Vojslav and Ordena were motivated to assist Zoran financially and to help him get back on his feet (albeit that may not have been their only motivation); and (d) transferring the title to the Balcatta property into Zoran's sole name afforded Zoran an asset against which he would be able to secure future borrowings in circumstances where by reason of their age and health Vojslav and Ordena were not willing or as readily able to borrow and service debt. 307 Calverley v Green (262) (Mason & Brennan JJ), citing Shephard v Cartwright (445); Charles Marshall Pty Ltd v Grimsley (365); Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Jacobs' Law of Trusts in Australia (8th ed, 2016) [12.13]. -- 95 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 96 414 These matters supported the inference that the transfer of the Balcatta property was intended by Vojslav to be, and was made as a gift. 415 In this case, as there was other evidence adduced that went to intention, the circumstance of the relationship of father and adult son could not be considered alone, and the fact of that relationship fell then to simply be weighed in the overall evidentiary mix.308 416 Vojslav and Zoran's evidence of the circumstances of the 1990 transfer was given in the context of this confiscation proceeding, in circumstances where in the absence of an equitable interest being established, the Balcatta property would be confiscated to the State. 417 As is recorded above, I found that what in fact occurred here could not properly be characterised as or to be the equivalent of, the provision pro tanto of the purchase price of the property. That was determinative of the question as to whether there was a presumed resulting trust which arose by reason of Vojslav being a contributor of purchase money. Had I found otherwise, on the balance of probabilities, weighing the fact of the parent/adult son relationship in the overall evidentiary mix, I would not have found the objective intention to create a trust. Equitable lien - overview 418 Vojslav also maintained that the circumstances in which the Balcatta property came to be transferred to Zoran gave rise to an equitable lien in his favour.309 An equitable lien is a form of equitable charge over property which arises automatically, by implication of equity, to secure the discharge of an actual or potential indebtedness.310 It does not depend either upon contract or upon possession.311 It arises by operation of law, under a doctrine of equity, 'as part of a scheme of equitable adjustment of mutual rights and obligations'.312 419 An equitable lien may arise in a number of contexts.313 It was common ground as between the State and Vojslav that the following 308 Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation [65]. 309 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, pars 27 - 31. 310 Hewett v Court [1983] HCA 7; (1983) 149 CLR 639, 645 (Gibbs CJ), 654 (Wilson & Dawson JJ), 663 (Deane J). 311 Hewett v Court (645) (Gibbs CJ). 312 Davies v Littlejohn [1923] HCA 64; (1923) 34 CLR 174Error! Bookmark not defined., 185, as noted in Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] HCA 15; (2014) 252 CLR 307 [14]. 313 Hewett v Court (645) (Gibbs CJ). -- 96 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 97 circumstances would be sufficient (rather than essential) for the implication, independently of agreement, of an equitable lien between parties in a contractual relationship:314 (a) There must be an actual or potential indebtedness on the part of the property owner to the other party arising from a payment or promise of payment, either of consideration in relation to the acquisition of the property, or of an expense incurred in relation to the property; (b) The property (or, arguably, property including the property) must be specifically identified and appropriated to the performance of the contract; and (c) The relationship between the actual or potential indebtedness and the identified and appropriated property must be such that the owner would be acting unconscientiously or unfairly if the owner were to dispose of that property to a stranger, without the consent of the other party, or without the actual or potential liability having been discharged. 420 In approaching this claim, I was cognisant that the class of relationships or the particular circumstances in which equity may imply a lien are not confined to one narrow category.315 As Gibbs CJ said in Hewett v Court:316 The rules of equity are not so rigid and inflexible that it is necessary to discover precise authority in favour of the existence of a lien before one can be held to have been created. I do not of course intend to suggest that the courts may proceed on general notions of justice without regard to settled principles. 421 Circumstances in which equity may imply a lien have been found to include where a vendor of land who has parted with the legal title by way of conveyance to the extent of purchase money unpaid, such lien being available against all save the bona fide purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice of the fact of non-payment.317 422 As was recorded by Gibbs CJ in Hewett v Court, a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money has been said to be founded on the principle that 'a person, having got the estate of another, shall not, as between 314 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 24; fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, par 27, citing Hewett v Court (668). 315 Hewett v Court (646). 316 Hewett v Court (649), as noted by the Court of Appeal in Coad v Wellness Pursuit Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2009] WASCA 68; (2009) 40 WAR 53 [45]. See also Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in liq) [31]. 317 Porter v Bonarrigo [2009] VSC 500 [95], with reference to Sykes EI, Law of Securities, (5th ed, 1993), page 199. Hewett v Court (645). -- 97 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 98 them, keep it, and not pay the consideration'.318 The rule has been said to be founded on 'solid and substantial justice', and the vendor is treated as a secured creditor - the lien is the security for the money which is justly due.319 423 I noted also that the implication of an equitable lien can be precluded or qualified by express or implied agreement by the parties.320 Equitable lien - Vojslav's position 424 On behalf of Vojslav the following submissions were made with respect to the existence of an equitable lien in his favour:321 During [Zoran] and [Vojslav's] discussion [in about October 1990], it is submitted that [Vojslav] made clear intentions to [Zoran] that, inter alia, [Zoran] owed $30,000.00 to [Vojslav] for discharging the mortgage on the [Balcatta property]. It is submitted that [Zoran] was an actual debtor of [Vojslav] in that, in the event that [Zoran] failed to pay the $30,000.00, [Vojslav] would have a full interest in the [Balcatta property]. Therefore, [Vojslav] submits that the first condition is satisfied. [Vojslav] submits that the second condition is also satisfied because he identified the Outstanding Debt in the Agreement before transferring the Property back into [Zoran's] name. The actual debt was to repay [Vojslav] for discharging the Westpac Mortgage on the Property. In those circumstances, [Zoran] would be acting unconscionably and unfairly if it were to renege on repaying the actual debt to the plaintiff [sic] and retain the ownership of the [Balcatta property]. As such, [Vojslav] submits that the third condition is also satisfied. In light of the above, [Vojslav] submits that an equitable lien would be established in the circumstances of the Agreement between [Zoran] and [Vojslav]. Equitable lien - the State's position 425 It was the State's position that the circumstances of this case did not ground the implication of an equitable lien. It was the State's position that: 318 Hewett v Court (645), citing Mackreth v Symmons (1808) 15 Ves 329 (1808) 33 ER 778, 782. 319 Hewett v Court (645), citing Rose v Watson (1864) 10 HLC 672; (1864) 11 ER 1187, 1192 and Combe v Lord Swaythling [1947] Ch 625, 628. 320 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 25, citing Hewett v Court (663). 321 Fourth plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 28 February 2022, pars 28 - 31. -- 98 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 99 (a) the circumstances of this case did not fall within any recognised category of relationship or circumstances where an equitable lien has commonly been found, and there was an absence of an arm's length commercial relationship between Vojslav and Zoran;322 (b) any lien would be precluded or qualified by the terms of the transfer signed by the parties in 1990 which made it apparent that the Balcatta property was a gift;323 (c) the first requirement in Hewett v Court had not been satisfied as the alleged debt included loan moneys which were allegedly used for living expenses ($30,569.25), moneys allegedly paid to Vesna to settle Family Court proceedings, moneys allegedly paid to Zoran to pay a mortgage ($8,220 and $30,000) and moneys allegedly paid for furniture and fittings ($5,993.80). To the extent that moneys related to furniture and fittings, these are chattels and are not contributions to the real property, and the alleged debt in its entirety was not therefore 'in relation to the acquisition of the (real) property or an expense incurred in relation to the (real) property';324 (d) the second requirement in Hewett v Court had not been satisfied as the loan could be repaid from funds quite unconnected with any proceeds of sale of the real property;325 and (e) the third requirement in Hewett v Court had not been satisfied as the real property had not been appropriated to the performance of the alleged agreement and therefore it was not unconscionable for it to be confiscated and sold with reimbursement being made from any sale proceeds. There are no facts or circumstances which would take the present situation outside the ordinary relationship of debtor and creditor.326 Equitable lien - disposition 426 In considering whether the circumstances in which the Balcatta property came to be transferred to Zoran gave rise to an equitable lien in favour of Vojslav, I proceeded cognisant that the rules governing the 322 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 27. 323 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 27. 324 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 22 March 2022, par 12, citing Bamess v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 259 [77]; Dawson v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASC 113 [90]. 325 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 22 March 2022, par 12. 326 Defendant's outline of submissions filed on 22 March 2022, par 12. -- 99 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 100 circumstances in which equity has considered that justice requires the recognition of the existence of a lien are not confined to any particular narrow group of categories. While I accepted the same, I was not satisfied that the circumstances gave rise to an equitable lien. 427 In the circumstances of this case, I was not satisfied that there was an actual indebtedness on the part of Zoran to Vojslav which arose from a payment or promise of payment, either of consideration in relation to the acquisition of the Balcatta property, or of an expense incurred in relation to the Balcatta property. 428 For the reasons expressed above at [401] to [417], on the balance of probabilities, weighing the fact of the parent/adult son relationship in the overall evidentiary mix, the Balcatta property was transferred to Zoran as a gift. 429 To the extent that Zoran had agreed to repay amounts that had been expended by Vojslav for Zoran's benefit over time, I also accepted the State's submission that the alleged debt in its entirety was not an expense incurred in relation to the Balcatta property. Not all of the money advanced by Vojslav to Zoran was expended on the Balcatta property. Some had been used to pay for general living expenses of Zoran and Vesna, to meet Zoran's obligation to Vesna by way of a financial settlement upon their divorce, and the acquisition of furniture. 430 I accepted that Vojslav had given considerable financial support to Zoran over time. Vojslav had advanced his own funds to assist his son and his (then) daughter in law in first acquiring a home in 1984, and then in meeting Zoran and Vesna's mortgage obligations on that home. Before the Balcatta property was transferred to Vojslav in 1987, Zoran and Vesna had been indebted to Westpac. Vojslav borrowed money from Westpac which facilitated that transfer. Vojslav and Ordena then promptly repaid that debt so that the Balcatta property was held unencumbered. In 1990 Vojslav transferred the Balcatta property back to his son. It was through Vojslav and Ordena's effort that Zoran became the owner of an unencumbered property in 1990. I have no doubt that from Vojslav's perspective, the confiscation of the Balcatta property, which to a large extent had been paid for from Vojslav and Ordena's own hard earnt resources, and where there was no suggestion that it was crime-derived, was grossly unfair. However, for the reasons set out above, I was not satisfied that Vojslav held an equitable interest in the Balcatta property by operation of an equitable lien. I was not -- 100 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 101 satisfied on the evidence that Vojslav held an interest in the Balcatta property at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Whether Paul holds an equitable interest in the Balcatta property 431 Paul also claimed to hold an equitable interest in the Balcatta property. Paul was not represented in this proceeding. He did not provide any details of, or legal authority, to ground his claim to an interest in the Balcatta property. Paul's position 432 Zoran borrowed money from Westpac which was secured by a mortgage granted over the Balcatta property on 9 April 2003. Paul's evidence was that he had made mortgage repayments (in reduction of Zoran's indebtedness to Westpac) in circumstances where Zoran had said words to the effect that if Paul paid the mortgage as much as he could then half of the Balcatta property would be Paul's. 433 There were no notes or records evidencing the representation Paul maintained had been made to him by Zoran, or as to any verbal agreement as between Zoran and Paul. 434 It was Paul's evidence that he commenced making payments after he returned to live in the Balcatta property with his father in 2002, and that most of Paul's wages went towards the mortgage.327 Paul attached to his second affidavit documentary evidence that he had made payments that had reduced Zoran's indebtedness to Westpac. However, that documentary evidence was limited to the deposit slips for seven deposits of $500 into a Westpac loan account held by Zoran in the period from February 2006 to February 2007, which came to a total of $3,500.328 These payments were all made after Zoran had been charged and the freezing notice had been issued. 435 Paul maintained that while he was residing in the Balcatta property he also paid for certain improvements that were made it.329 As to the same, Paul's evidence was that Zoran had arranged for the work and materials, and paid for it from the money in Paul's account; and Paul agreed for the work and materials to be paid for from his account as he 327 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 6, reproduced at [217] of these reasons. 328 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 7, PS1 (pages 7 - 13). 329 See [219] - [220] of these reasons. -- 101 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 102 expected to have half of the Balcatta property, and he lived there and it made it more pleasant.330 436 Paul attached to his unsworn affidavit a bundle of Commonwealth Bank statements. The payments made for work and materials could not be identified from those bank statements.331 Nor could it be discerned from those statements that most of Paul's wages went towards the mortgage (as was Paul's evidence). Indeed, the statements recorded numerous debits for transactions with descriptions that suggested ordinary living expenses. The State's position 437 The State did not cross-examine Paul as to his account of his conversation with Zoran. The State approached Paul's claim by the making of submissions as to why Paul's evidence could not ground an equitable interest in the Balcatta property. 438 The State submitted that Paul's evidence of what he had been told by Zoran (that if Paul paid the mortgage as much as he could then half of the Balcatta property would be his), was not sufficiently clear to have created a trust as what was said was 'not sufficiently promissory', was 'not sufficient to give rise to any species of trust and [it was] simply insufficient'.332 439 As to Paul's evidence that he had made mortgage payments, it was noted that there was no quantification of the amounts paid by Paul, and the documentary evidence was very thin or non-existent.333 440 As to the improvements made to the Balcatta property, the State complained that Paul had not established that the Balcatta property had increased in value as a consequence of the unquantified expenditure.334 Disposition 441 As Paul was not represented in the proceeding, I gave careful consideration to Paul's evidence, and considered whether it might ground an equitable interest in half of the Balcatta property. In light of Paul's evidence, I considered whether his evidence might ground the finding of a common intention constructive trust. 330 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 9. 331 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 9, PS2. 332 ts 162 (5 April 2023). 333 ts 163 (5 April 2023). 334 ts 163 (5 April 2023), referring to Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASC 273. -- 102 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 103 442 A common intention constructive trust creates substantive rights and is not merely an equitable remedy that comes into existence when a court makes a declaration to that effect.335 In order to establish a common interest constructive trust it is necessary to establish the following. First, that there is an actual or inferred common intention that the claimant has or will have a beneficial interest in the property. Secondly, that there has been detrimental reliance on the common intention by the claimant. Thirdly, that there is conduct by the trustee which would make it unconscionable to allow the trustee to resile from the common intention.336 443 The quantum of the claimant's beneficial interest will be that which the parties agreed upon or intended, if that can be established.337 444 The State complained that Paul's evidence of what he had been told by Zoran (that if Paul paid the mortgage as much as he could then half of the Balcatta property would be his), was not sufficiently clear to have created a trust as what was said was 'not sufficiently promissory', and was 'not sufficient to give rise to any species of trust and [it was] simply insufficient'.338 445 In considering whether there is a common intention constructive trust, it is necessary to look at the actual intention of the parties. Such an intention cannot be imputed. The law does not impute a presumed intention to the parties based upon what the Court considers fair and reasonable persons in the position of the parties would have intended had they turned their minds to the issue.339 446 The intention may be established in various ways. There may be an agreement between the parties as to how the property should be held. There may be express statements as to their intention. However, that intention need not be expressed in a particular manner.340 Their intention may be inferred from their conduct. The question of what acts demonstrate an agreement or common intention referable to the 335 Parsons v McBain [2001] FCA 376; (2001) 109 FCR 120 [9] - [16] (Black CJ, Kiefel & Finkelstein JJ); Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78; (1985) CLR 583, 614 (Deane J); Stavrianakos v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASC 64 [295] (Tottle J). 336 Zekry v Zekry [2020] VSCA 336 [75], cited in Marchese v Marchese [2021] WASC 385, [139]. 337 Shepherd v Doolan [2005] NSWSC 42 [41]. 338 ts 162 (5 April 2023). 339 Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777, 804, 810, 816 - 817; Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886, 900, 902, 905 - 909; Allen v Snyder [1977] 2 NSWLR 685, 690, 698, 701; Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia [27], cited in the State's outline of submissions filed on 2 August 2021, par 16. 340 Baumgartner v Baumgartner (1985) 2 NSWLR 406, 417 (Kirby P), 444 (Priestley JA). But see Baumgartner v Baumgartner [1987] HCA 59; (1987) 164 CLR 137. -- 103 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 104 beneficial enjoyment of the property is one of evidence, not law.341 A common intention that a party has a beneficial interest in a property owned by another will not be inferred merely from their joint occupation of property, nor the carrying out of household duties, nor the bringing up of children on the property, nor the doing of repairs, renovations, maintenance, decoration or improvement, nor the provision of furniture.342 447 In light of the above, I did not consider the State's submission that the words attributed to Zoran by Paul were not sufficiently promissory, or sufficient, to be a basis to conclude that Paul's claim was doomed to fail. 448 There were however a number of obstacles to Paul's claim to holding an equitable interest in the Balcatta property. Intentions as to beneficial ownership 449 On the evidence, I was not satisfied that both parties, Zoran and Paul, intended that Paul have an interest in the Balcatta property. 450 On 22 December 2005 Zoran made a statutory declaration after he was served with the freezing order in which he declared that Paul had an interest in the Balcatta property.343 451 While Paul deposed to words attributed to Zoran in Paul's evidence, Zoran did not address Paul's claim as to the Balcatta property in his evidence. 452 At the hearing it was Zoran's position that Vojslav was the beneficial owner of the Balcatta property.344 It was Zoran's evidence that he could not recall why Vojslav's interest was not recorded in the statutory declaration, and the effect of Zoran's evidence was that the omission was a mistake and that he did not have a lawyer acting for him at that time.345 453 While Zoran noted in the course of his closing submissions that he and Paul had undertaken renovations to the Balcatta property,346 his 341 Shepherd v Doolan [37], citing Allen v Snyder (691); Green v Green (1989) 17 NSWLR 343, 355. 342 Shepherd v Doolan [37], citing Pettitt v Pettitt (805 - 806, 811, 818, 826); Gissing v Gissing (900, 910); Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, 326, 328, 342. 343 Exhibit 1. A copy of the statutory declaration was also before the Court as an attachment to the affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. 344 First plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 6. 345 ts 78 (4 April 2023). 346 ts 149 (5 April 2023). -- 104 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 105 evidence and submissions were silent to the existence of a common intention held with Paul that Paul should have a beneficial interest in the Balcatta property. 454 I also considered whether a common intention might be supported by evidence of Paul's conduct. While Paul deposed that most of his wages went towards the mortgage after he returned to live with his father, the assertion was not supported by reference to evidence of payments made. Indeed there was no evidence of payments having been made in reduction of Zoran's indebtedness to Westpac before the Balcatta property was frozen on 21 December 2005; and there was only evidence of seven deposits made by Paul from 16 February 2006 to 15 February 2007 in the relatively modest total amount of $3,500.347 455 Further, in considering whether a common intention might be supported by evidence of Paul's conduct, I proceeded on the basis that a common intention that Paul would have a beneficial interest in the Balcatta property would not be inferred merely from Paul's evidence that his money was used to do repairs and renovations to the Balcatta property. Detrimental reliance on the common intention 456 For there to be a common intention constructive trust, there must be evidence that Paul acted to his detriment in a way referable to the agreement or intention that he have an interest in the Balcatta property.348 Conduct which is insufficient to establish a common intention as to the ownership of the property may be sufficient to constitute relevant actions to the plaintiff's detriment to establish a trust if the common intention is established otherwise.349 457 In this case, that Paul acted to his detriment by him applying most of his wages towards the mortgage after he returned to live with his father was not supported by evidence beyond Paul's own assertion. 458 As is noted above, the assertion was not supported by the evidence of payments made. Indeed there was no evidence of payments having been made by Paul in reduction of Zoran's indebtedness to Westpac before the Balcatta property was frozen, and then only in the relatively modest amount of $3,500. 347 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 7, PS1 (pages 7 - 13). 348 Shepherd v Doolan [40], citing Austin v Keele (1987) 10 NSWLR 283 , 291; Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 , 648; Carruthers v Manning [2001] NSWSC 1130 [124]. 349 Shepherd v Doolan [40], citing Green v Green (355); Grant v Edwards (647, 652, 655). -- 105 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 106 459 As is noted above, Paul attached to his second affidavit copies of deposit slips showing deposits being made to Westpac account 037-134 40-0041 from 16 February 2006 to 15 February 2007.350 Zoran did not attach to his affidavit the bank statements for that account for that period. However, Zoran did attach to his affidavit copies of the bank account statements from 20 February 2003 to 14 February 2006. The statements did not record deposits having been made to the account after Paul returned to live with his father.351 460 Further, the financial contribution made by Paul to improving the Balcatta property while he resided there (which I considered could be conduct that showed he acted to his detriment in a way referable to the agreement or intention that he have an interest in the property) was not quantified by Paul, and his assertion was not supported by reference to evidence of costs incurred. While bank statements were attached to Paul's affidavit, the payments made for work and materials could not be identified from those bank statements.352 When the trust came into existence 461 If Paul's evidence was sufficient to ground a common intention, it was necessary to consider when the constructive trust came into existence. 462 As is recorded above, a common intention constructive trust creates substantive rights and is not merely an equitable remedy that comes into existence when a court makes a declaration to that effect.353 However, as to when a constructive trust will take effect, I proceeded on the basis that in the absence of any judicial order to the contrary, a constructive trust will take effect from the moment at which the conduct which has given rise to its imposition occurs.354 463 The statement attributed to Zoran by Paul made in about 2002 or 2003 would not itself have brought any trust into existence. The trust would only arise when, in reliance on Zoran's statement that Zoran's interest in the Balcatta property would become his, Paul acted by 350 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, PS1. 351 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, ZS28. 352 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 9, PS2. 353 Parsons v McBain [9] - [16] (Black CJ, Kiefel & Finkelstein JJ); Muschinski (614) (Deane J); Stavrianakos [295] (Tottle J). 354 Secretary, Department of Social Security v Agnew [2000] FCA 59; (2000) 96 FCR 357 [18]; referring to Oakley AJ, Constructive Trusts (3rd ed, 1997) 5. See also Pawlowski M, The Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel (1996) 130 - 132. Cf Re Sabri; Ex parte Brien v Sabri (1996) 21 Fam LR 213, 223 - 229. -- 106 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 107 making mortgage payments and spending money on improvements to the Balcatta property. 464 As is noted above, Paul's assertion that he made mortgage payments after moving in with his father in 2002 was not supported by any bank records or documents. There was however evidence in the form of deposit slips of reliance on the part of Paul with respect to seven deposits made from 16 February 2006. Those payments occurred after the Balcatta property had been frozen but before February 2008 when Zoran was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A of the Misuse of Drugs Act. 465 Payments made after the Balcatta property was frozen must be considered in light of s 50 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act. Subject to s 50(2), a person must not deal with property frozen under a freezing notice or a freezing order in any way.355 Any dealing with property that contravenes s 50 'has no effect, whether at law, in equity or otherwise, on the rights of the State under [the] Act'. Zoran could not, after the property was frozen, deal with the property so as to create an equitable interest in Paul.356 Conclusion 466 The obstacles discussed above would also be determinative of other forms of equitable relief. But ultimately, Paul has failed to provide an evidential foundation to substantiate his claim that he made contributions to the Property in a manner that would call for the intervention of equity to recognise or create a proprietary interest because it would be unconscionable to not do so. Indeed, the only established contributions to the Property were made after the Property was frozen and after Paul had filed his objection with this Court. Equity will not intervene in these circumstances. 467 I was not satisfied on the evidence that Paul held an interest in the Balcatta property at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Whether Dimche holds an equitable interest in the Balcatta property 468 Dimche submitted that on or about 2006, he lodged a caveat on Zoran's property to protect the money that Dimche had entrusted to Zoran in 2002 and 2005; and that the 'Property (Money secured by 355 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 50(1). 356 Whittle v The State of Western Australia [44]. -- 107 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 108 Caveat) should be released back' to him.357 Dimche attached to his first affidavit sworn on 30 January 2011 (and filed in this proceeding on 18 October 2021) a copy of the first page of a Form C1 caveat, which had been completed to identify the Balcatta property, which was signed by Dimche and dated 1 May 2006, and which recorded Dimche's interest as caveator in the Balcatta property as arising by virtue of: An Acknowledgment of Debt and Deed of Charge dated 21st April 2006 and made between the registered proprietor as Borrower and the caveator as Lender. 469 Only the first page of the Form C1 was attached to Dimche's affidavit. The second page of the Form C1 was not reproduced. There was no record on the Form C1 of it having been lodged with Landgate, nor the allocation of a caveat number. There was no evidence to support the submission made that the caveat was in fact lodged in 2006. Dimche did not positively depose to the same. 470 Vojslav attached to his affidavit a copy of the Balcatta property certificate of title search obtained on 11 September 2008, which recorded as the only encumbrances on that title as at that date the mortgage in favour of Westpac lodged on 9 April 2003, and the Criminal Property Confiscation Act memorial lodged on 22 December 2005.358 There was no record of lodgment of a caveat in favour of Dimche on the certificate of title. Further, a copy of the instrument said to ground the interest in the Balcatta property dated 21 April 2006 was not included in the evidence adduced by Dimche (or otherwise in evidence before the Court). 471 As was observed on behalf of the State, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it may be presumed that Zoran was on 19 February 2008 (and is) the full beneficial owner of the Balcatta property.359 To the extent that Dimche had in the course of this proceeding pressed a claim with respect to the Balcatta property, there was an inadequate evidential foundation to support the same. Item 5 - Cash in the sum of $3,500 472 The State sought a declaration that cash in the total amount of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005 had been confiscated. That total included $2,700 from the $3,500 cash that had been seized 357 Second plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, pars 2 and 3. 358 Affidavit of V Stanoevski sworn on 15 May 2009, VS-1. 359 ts 48 (4 April 2023), citing Nelson v Nelson. See eg Calverley v Green (265). -- 108 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 109 from the Balcatta property. That is, of the $3,500 seized and described in item 5 of the freezing notice, the State sought a declaration of confiscation for $2,700 on the basis that $800 was controlled purchase moneys. 473 As is recorded above, Dimche claimed an interest in the $3,500, and Zoran supported that claim. 474 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, including the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; the statement of Mr Taylor, which formed part of the prosecution brief attached to the affidavit of Mr Anderson, and the annexure to that statement;360 and the affidavit evidence of Zoran and Dimche, and their oral evidence. I found as follows. Findings 475 Cash in Australian currency was seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005, which included cash in the amount of $3,500 (the subject of item 5 of the freezing notice), which was found in the bed located in the master bedroom of the Balcatta property.361 476 Of the $3,500 seized, $800 was controlled purchase moneys. This was made plain by the statement of Mr Taylor, which formed part of the prosecution brief (a copy of which was attached to the affidavit of Mr Anderson), and the annexure to that statement.362 When regard was had to evidence concerning the serial numbers on the notes which comprised $800 of the $3,500 seized, it was established that the same $800 of the $3,500 seized was not provided by Dimche to Zoran on 20 December 2005 (or at all). 477 Ordena died on 27 March 2005 and arrangements were made by Zoran in April for Ordena to be buried at Karrakatta Cemetery.363 478 Dimche made affidavits in January, June and September 2011. They were filed in the proceeding as a bundle on 18 October 2021 without further correction. As is recorded above, the three affidavits stood as Dimche's evidence in chief at trial. 360 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, pars 11 - 12, CMA3 (pages 68 - 69, 108); Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 107. 361 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 83, 87, 104); affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 14(b). 362 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 67 - 71). 363 Affidavit of Z Stanoevski sworn on 16 October 2011, par 3, ZS12, ZS22 (page 162). -- 109 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 110 479 Dimche's evidence as recorded in the affidavits made included evidence to the effect that: (a) he had a strong familial connection to Vojslav, Ordena and Zoran, and that Ordena died in March 2005;364 (b) between the last week of November 2005 and the second week of December 2005, Zoran had asked Dimche if Dimche could make a contribution towards the cost of Ordena's tombstone;365 (c) on 20 December 2005 Dimche went to the Nollamara branch of the Commonwealth Bank and withdrew $4,000 in cash;366 and (d) on 20 December 2005 Dimche met Zoran and gave him $3,500 in cash, and Dimche retained $500 from the amount that he had earlier withdrawn from his bank for his own personal expenses.367 480 None of these matters were the subject of much elaboration in cross-examination.368 481 Dimche's evidence was also that the payment of $3,500 to Zoran was made for the specific purpose of part payment for the erection of a tombstone upon Ordena's grave in time for the anniversary of her death.369 There is no evidence that the $3,500 handed to Zoran by Dimche was applied towards the cost of Ordena's tombstone. Zoran's evidence was that it was not. 482 Dimche's answers to questions put to him in cross-examination were less certain than his affidavit evidence. As to the reason Zoran required funds, Dimche's evidence at the hearing was that he was only 'pretty sure it was for the stone'.370 Further, there was no reference made to the money requested and provided being a loan in any of his affidavits. It was only in the course of cross-examination, when Dimche was asked if the money was provided as a gift or a loan, that Dimche asserted the money was provided to Zoran as a loan.371 364 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, pars 4 and 9. 365 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 10; affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 26 September 2011, par 4. 366 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 12. 367 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 13. 368 ts 83, 90 - 91 (4 April 2023). 369 Affidavit of D Nikoloski sworn on 15 June 2011, par 14. 370 ts 90 (4 April 2023). 371 ts 91 (4 April 2023). -- 110 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 111 483 While Zoran in his written submissions asserted that Dimche had lent him $3,500 to help pay for a tombstone for his mother,372 Zoran did not characterise the provision of $3,500 as a loan in his affidavit. In the course of cross-examination, Zoran did not accept that the money was provided as a gift, and asserted that he had borrowed the money, but had not used the money towards payment of the tombstone as the money was Dimche's.373 484 For the purposes of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, 'owner', in relation to property, means a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property.374 485 On the balance of probabilities, when regard is had to all of the evidence adduced, $800 of the $3,500 seized was controlled purchase moneys and Dimche had no interest in the same. 486 If any part of the $3,500 seized (the subject of item 5 of the freezing notice) came to be moneys in Zoran's possession as a gift from Dimche or because it was money lent to Zoran by Dimche, Dimche had no legal or equitable interest in that money. If the money was provided as a gift, Zoran was the owner for the purposes of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, and if the money was advanced as a loan, Zoran was the owner for the purposes of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, with Dimche holding only a contractual right to be repaid. In either case, the cash seized that had been provided by Dimche to Zoran was owned by Zoran. 487 Further, if the $2,700 found in the bed of the master bedroom came from the money withdrawn by Dimche from his bank account on 20 December 2005 and provided to Zoran, the evidence did not support the conclusion that a trust or equitable charge in favour of Dimche arose. Zoran and Dimche each characterised the money provided by Dimche to Zoran as a loan. Further, as to the reason Zoran required funds, Dimche's evidence at the hearing was that he was only 'pretty sure it was for the stone'.375 488 I was not satisfied that there was evidence of a 'definite intention' or any common intention concerning the money provided by Dimche to 372 First plaintiff's outline of submissions filed on 4 March 2022, par 7. 373 ts 83 (4 April 2023). 374 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 3(1) (Glossary). 375 ts 90 (4 April 2023). -- 111 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 112 Zoran so as to give rise to the creation of a trust in favour of Dimche when he provided that money to Zoran.376 489 I was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that $2,700 from the $3,500 cash in Australian currency described at item 5 of the freezing notice was owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 6 - Cash in the sum of $2,600 490 The State sought a declaration that cash in the total amount of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005 had been confiscated. That total included $400 from the $2,600 cash in Australian currency described at item 6 of the freezing notice. That is, of the $2,600 seized and described in item 6 of the freezing notice, the State sought a declaration of confiscation for $400 on the basis that $2,200 was controlled purchase moneys. 491 As is recorded above, Paul claimed an interest in the $2,600, and Zoran supported that claim. 492 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, including the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; the affidavit evidence of Mr Blaine; the statement of Mr Taylor, which formed part of the prosecution brief attached to the affidavit of Mr Anderson, and the annexure to that statement;377 and the affidavit evidence of Zoran and Paul, and their oral evidence. I found as follows. Findings 493 Cash in Australian currency was seized from Zoran at the Balcatta property on 20 December 2005, which included $2,600 (the subject of item 6 of the freezing notice), which was found in a blue book in the bed located in the master bedroom.378 494 Of that $2,600 found and seized, $2,200 was controlled purchase moneys. This was made plain by the statement of Mr Taylor, which 376 As to the common intention constructive trust see Astill v The State of Western Australia [41] - [42], citing Stowe v Stowe (1995) 15 WAR 363, 367 - 368; Trajkoski v The State of Western Australia [27]. As to the definite intention to retain the beneficial title see Campana v The State of Western Australia [83], referring to Drever v Drever [1936] ALJ 207. 377 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, pars 11 - 12, CMA3 (pages 68 – 69, 108); Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 107. 378 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 88 - 94, 105); affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 14(c); affidavit of CS Blaine sworn on 27 July 2021, par 5, CSB1, CSB2. -- 112 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 113 formed part of the prosecution brief (a copy of which was attached to the affidavit of Mr Anderson), and the annexure to that statement.379 When regard was had to evidence concerning the serial numbers on $2,200 of the $2,600 seized, it was established that the same $2,200 of the $2,600 seized was controlled purchase moneys and not money collected by Zoran as rent from tenants at the unit belonging to Paul, and held for Paul (as had been asserted). 495 Mr Taylor's statement was preferred to the evidence of Zoran and Paul, which was not supported by a rent agreement or any other persuasive documentary evidence. 496 As to the remaining $400, I understood that in the course of cross-examination, Paul accepted that he did not know that the moneys Zoran collected on his behalf for rent was the same $2,600 that the police seized from his father's house.380 497 The State submitted that the fact that $2,200 of the amount seized was controlled purchase moneys casted significant doubt on the veracity or reliability of Zoran and Paul's affidavit evidence with respect to the entire sum of $2,600. I accepted the same. 498 On the balance of probabilities, I found that of the $2,600 found and seized, $2,200 was controlled purchase moneys and $400 was owned by Zoran, and was not moneys held on trust in favour of Paul. I was also satisfied that it was owned by Zoran at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 7 - Cash in the sum of $950 499 The State sought a declaration that cash in the total amount of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005 had been confiscated. That total included $950 cash in Australian currency described at item 7 of the freezing notice. 500 As is recorded above, Dimche claimed an interest in the $950 and Zoran supported that claim when he declared Dimche to be an interested party with respect to item 7 of the freezing notice.381 501 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the 379 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 67 - 71). 380 ts 138 (5 April 2023). 381 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4, as recorded at [11] of these reasons. -- 113 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 114 Court, including the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; the affidavit evidence of Mr Anderson; and the affidavit evidence of Zoran and Dimche, and their oral evidence. I found as follows. Findings 502 Cash in Australian currency was seized from Zoran at the Balcatta property on 20 December 2005, which included $950 (the subject of item 7 of the freezing notice), which was found in the walk-in robe of the master bedroom.382 503 As is recorded above, none of the affidavits made by Dimche described the basis for the interest he claimed in the property described at item 7 of the freezing notice (cash in the sum of $950); and in the course of his cross-examination, when asked how or why he claimed an interest in that amount, Dimche's evidence was that he could not now recall.383 504 Zoran's evidence did not support Dimche's claim with respect to the sum of $950. Instead, it was Zoran's evidence that on 19 December 2005 Zoran had withdrawn an amount of $900 from his Nation Security account (the account the subject of item 13 of the freezing notice). Zoran had attached to his affidavit an account withdrawal receipt for that amount. Zoran further deposed that he did not remember whether he had added $50 to this bundle during the course of the day, but did remember that he had placed this bundle of cash in the walk-in robe of his bedroom on top of a pile of his clothes. He deposed that he used to do this from time to time after his pension payment had been received, and that his intention on this occasion was to spend the money on family Christmas presents. In his same affidavit, Zoran also gave an account as to the source of the $950 as recorded at [158] - [160] of these reasons. 505 On the balance of probabilities, I was satisfied that the $950 (the subject of item 7 of the freezing notice) was money owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 8 - Cash in the sum of $55 506 The State sought a declaration that cash in the total amount of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005 had been confiscated. 382 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 82 - 84, 88, 106); affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 14(d). 383 ts 92 (4 April 2023). -- 114 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 115 That total included $55 cash in Australian currency described at item 8 of the freezing notice. 507 In the statutory declaration made by Zoran on 22 December 2005, he declared that to the best of his then information and belief, there was no one with an interest in the property the subject of item 8 of the freezing notice.384 Neither Dimche, Paul nor Vojslav claimed an interest in that sum. 508 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, particularly the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock and Mr Anderson. I found as follows. Findings 509 Cash in Australian currency was seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005, which included $55 (the subject of item 8 of the freezing notice), which was found in a green notebook in the sofa in Zoran's living room.385 510 In the absence of any other evidence or claim, on the balance of probabilities, I was satisfied that the $55 (the subject of item 8 of the freezing notice) was money owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 10 - Cash in the sum of $50 511 The State sought a declaration that cash in the total amount of $4,155 seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005 had been confiscated. That total included $50 cash in Australian currency described at item 10 of the freezing notice. 512 In the statutory declaration made by Zoran on 22 December 2005, he declared that to the best of his then information and belief, there was no one with an interest in the property the subject of item 10 of the freezing notice.386 Neither Dimche, Paul nor Vojslav claimed an interest in that item. 513 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to the property the subject of item 10, I considered 384 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. 385 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 82 - 84, 104); affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 14(e). 386 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. -- 115 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 116 the evidence before the Court, particularly the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock, Mr Anderson and Mr Blaine. I found as follows. Findings 514 Cash in Australian currency was seized from Zoran on 20 December 2005, which included cash in the amount of $50 (the subject of item 10 of the freezing notice), which was found in the glovebox of a vehicle that was searched in the presence of Zoran.387 515 Having been seized from Zoran's vehicle, and in the absence of any other evidence, on the balance of probabilities, I was satisfied that the $50 (the subject of item 10 of the freezing notice) was money owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 13 - Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 516 The State sought a declaration that money standing to the credit of Zoran in Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 as at 19 February 2008, together with any interest thereon, had been confiscated. In the freezing notice, the estimated value of the property was recorded as being $3,600. 517 In the statutory declaration made by Zoran on 22 December 2005, Zoran declared that to the best of his then information and belief, there was no one with an interest in the property the subject of item 13 of the freezing notice.388 Neither Dimche, Paul nor Vojslav claimed an interest in that property. 518 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, particularly the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock. I found as follows. Findings 519 Mr Hancock deposed that Zoran is the account holder of Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836, and attached to his affidavit a duplicate statement of that Business Cheque Account which recorded that the account name was 'MR ZORAN STANOEVSKI T/AS 387 Affidavit of CM Anderson sworn on 14 July 2021, CMA3 (pages 85 - 86, 92 - 94, 103); affidavit of C Blaine sworn on 27 July 2021, CSB1; affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 14(g). 388 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. -- 116 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 117 NATION SECURITY', and the customer number was '8248**** STANOEVSKI, ZORAN'.389 520 Consistent with the banking record attached to Mr Hancock's affidavit, as to that account, Zoran deposed that it was a cheque account which he specifically opened to pay expenses incurred by his security business conducted under the name 'Nation Security'; and that the account would have been opened at the same time as the business in 1997. 521 He deposed that the account underwent two periods of operation, first, for the Nation Security business (which traded irregularly between 1997 until the end of 2001), and second, as one of his personal accounts (which he used from early 2002 to pay his personal expenses by cheque). 522 Among other things, he deposed that from May 2005 until the freezing order, payments into this account came almost exclusively from Centrelink for his disability pension. He attached to his affidavit copies of the bank statements in his possession from August 1998 until the account was frozen. 523 I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the money standing to the credit of Zoran in Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836 was owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Item 15 - Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 524 The State sought a declaration that moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 as at 19 February 2008, together with any interest thereon, had been confiscated. In the freezing notice, the estimated value of the property was recorded as being $71,500. 525 In the statutory declaration made by Zoran on 22 December 2005, Zoran declared that Paul may have an interest in that property.390 In his statutory declaration, Paul claimed an interest in that property. Neither Dimche nor Vojslav claimed an interest. 389 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 17(a), JCH17. In these reasons Z Stanoevski's customer number has been partially redacted. 390 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, JCH4. -- 117 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 118 526 In determining whether to make the declaration sought by the State with respect to this item, I considered the evidence before the Court, particularly the affidavit evidence of Mr Hancock; and the affidavit and oral evidence of Zoran and Paul. I found as follows. Findings 527 Mr Hancock deposed that Zoran is the account holder of Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935, and attached to his affidavit a duplicate statement of that Rocket Deposit Account which recorded that the account name was 'MR ZORAN STANOEVSKI', and the customer number was '8248**** STANOEVSKI, ZORAN'.391 528 As to that account, Zoran deposed that it was a saving account which before 19 February 2003 was called a Classic Saver account and thereafter a Rocket Saver account. He further deposed that until 21 December 2001, it was an account into which he had banked the income of his business called Nation Security, and from that date until March 2005, the insurance payments for his illness when he could not work, paid first by Royal Sun Alliance and later by Asteron Life Insurance. 529 He also deposed to the account later being linked to the mortgage account for the Balcatta property, and attached to his affidavit a copy of the bank statements relating to the account from November 1996 until the date of the freezing order. 530 Paul deposed in his second affidavit that he made no claim against item 15 of the freezing notice.392 Item 15 was not addressed in Paul's other affidavits. 531 I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the moneys standing to the credit of Zoran in Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935 was owned by Zoran, and was so owned at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. Conclusions 532 Property is confiscable for the purposes of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act if the property is, among other things, owned by a declared drug trafficker.393 391 Affidavit of JC Hancock sworn on 9 July 2008, par 17(b), JCH18. 392 Unsworn affidavit of P Stanoevski dated February 2009, par 14. 393 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 142. -- 118 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 119 533 For the reasons set out above, I find that all five of the matters identified at [52] above have been established. 534 It follows that the subject property was confiscated by operation of s 8(1) of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act with effect from 19 February 2008, and the property (except the Balcatta property) vested absolutely in the State of Western Australia at that time. 535 Given the mandatory terms of s 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act, I am required to and will now declare that the property had been confiscated. In making the declaration, the Balcatta property will now vest absolutely in the State.394 536 As the freezing order has ceased to have force, the objections are without utility.395 537 Subject to any party wishing to be heard as to their form, I propose to make orders in the following terms: The following property that Zoran Stanoevski owned at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) on 19 February 2008, has been confiscated to the State of Western Australia, namely: 1. Zoran Stanoevski's interest as the sole registered proprietor in the land at Lot 180 on Plan 65821 in Certificate of Title Volume 1658 Folio 953 commonly known as 55 Castleton Street, Balcatta; 2. Cash in the sum of AUD $4,155 seized from Zoran Stanoevski on 20 December 2005; 3. The money standing to the credit of Zoran Stanoevski in the following accounts as at 19 February 2008, together with any interest thereon: (a) Westpac account number 036-072 13-7836; and (b) Westpac account number 736-053 52-8935. 4. The money standing to the credit of Zoran Stanoevski in Bankwest account number 306-054 0524544 to the extent of 394 Criminal Property Confiscation Act s 9. 395 Brennan v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 31 [28]. -- 119 of 120 -- [2026] WASC 299 STRK J Page 120 $31,013.46 only, together with any interest thereon from 18 May 2020. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. CR Associate to the Honourable Justice Strk 28 JULY 2026 -- 120 of 120 --