Anderson and Australian Securities and Investments Commission

The applicant, Ms. Anderson, sought review of a decision by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to impose a banning order under section 920A of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth). The dispute concerned whether ASIC had the power to impose such an order and, if so, whether it was appropriate in Ms. Anderson's circumstances, or if another sanction would be more suitable.

The court was required to determine if the power to impose a banning order was enlivened by Ms. Anderson's conduct, and if so, to assess the appropriateness of the banning order itself. The court also had to consider the appropriate duration of any such order, taking into account submissions regarding specific and general deterrence, as well as mitigating factors.

Deputy President Molloy P found that neither "no sanction" nor an enforceable undertaking, as proposed by the applicant, were acceptable alternatives given the number and seriousness of the contraventions of the Act. The court accepted ASIC's submissions that a banning order was favoured by considerations of specific and general deterrence. While acknowledging mitigating factors, the court concluded that a two-year banning order was the correct and preferable decision, affirming the delegate's decision.