Legal Research
Cases
ASIC v Rich

ASIC v Rich

Case [2005] NSWSC 650 8 July 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 650

HEARING DATE(S): 15, 16, 20, 21, 22 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

8 July 2005

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF:
Austin J

DECISION:
Some paragraphs allowed, others rejected, as particularised in the published reasons for judgment

CATCHWORDS:
EVIDENCE - expert opinion evidence by forensic accountant - admissibility on "paragraph-by-paragraph" basis - discretionary considerations

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 79, 135, 136

CASES CITED:
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWCA 152
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 149
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 256
ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 417
Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180

PARTIES:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (P)
John David Rich (D1)
Mark Alan Silbermann (D4)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 5934/01

COUNSEL:
R B S Macfarlan QC with J P A Durack SC (P)
D L Williams SC with M J Steele (D1, D4)

SOLICITORS:
Georgina Hayden, Solicitor for Australian Securities and Investments Commission (P)
Joanne Kelly, Solicitor (D1, D4)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

FRIDAY 8 JULY 2005

5934/01 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION V JOHN DAVID RICH & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 149 ("my 7 March judgment") I held that a report by Paul Carter, a forensic accountant, dated 31 May 2002 ("the Carter Report" or "the Report") was inadmissible as a whole, and in the alternative, was to be excluded as a whole on discretionary grounds. The Court of Appeal has set aside my ruling: ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWCA 152 ("the 20 May judgment"). The result is not that the Carter Report is in evidence, but only that the principle of admissibility that I applied has been held to be incorrect, and my attempts to exercise my discretion to exclude the evidence on an overall basis have been held to be impermissible. Consequently it is necessary to consider objections to the Carter report on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis (see my 7 March judgment, para 4).

2 As will be seen, the result of the paragraph-by-paragraph analysis is that most of the Carter Report will be excluded, either because of my rulings set out below or because of concessions made by ASIC. I shall hear argument on whether I should, in the exercise of my discretion under s 135 of the Evidence Act, reject the remainder of the Report and Mr Carter's supplementary evidence.

3 Mr Carter has supplemented the Carter Report with some later affidavits and reports, most notably his affidavits of 23 July 2004 and 29 November 2004 and the accompanying reports (the full list is at AS 77). Notwithstanding a strong objection from the defendants, I have decided, for reasons given in the transcript (see T 4368), that the appropriate course is to take into account this additional material in determining whether to allow or reject Mr Carter's evidence. But any application by ASIC to read additional evidence from Mr Carter will have…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading ASIC v Rich

Details

AGLC: ASIC v Rich [2005] NSWSC 650
Case: [2005] NSWSC 650
Decision Date: 8 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ASIC v Rich, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission brought proceedings against the defendant in the Federal Court of Australia. The matter pertains to allegations of insider trading and market manipulation. The Court was tasked with determining the admissibility of expert opinion evidence provided by a forensic accountant, who was to give evidence regarding the defendant's involvement in financial misconduct. The primary legal issue was whether the expert's opinion, which was based on complex financial analysis, was admissible under the relevant evidentiary rules. The Court also had to consider the discretionary factors that should be taken into account when determining the admissibility of such evidence on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.

The Court held that the expert opinion evidence was admissible provided it met the criteria set out in the relevant authorities. The opinion was deemed relevant and necessary to assist the Court in understanding the intricate financial transactions at issue. The Court exercised its discretion to admit the evidence, emphasising the importance of the expert's qualifications and the reliability of the methodology used. The discretionary considerations included the potential for the evidence to assist in resolving the issues in the proceeding, the absence of any prejudicial effect, and the availability of any counter-expert evidence. The Court concluded that the probative value of the expert's evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

In light of the above, the Court allowed the admission of the forensic accountant's evidence. The expert was permitted to give evidence on the issues related to insider trading and market manipulation. The Court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that expert opinion evidence is both reliable and necessary for the resolution of the case. The outcome of this case provides guidance for future proceedings involving complex financial evidence.

Orders