Legal Research
Cases
ASIC v Sigalla

ASIC v Sigalla

Case [2010] NSWSC 606 2 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: ASIC v Sigalla [2010] NSWSC 606

HEARING DATE(S): 01/06/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: White J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 2 June 2010

DECISION: Order that the first defendant's application that each of the charges in paragraphs 14-19, 26-42 and 55-57 of the further amended statement of charge dated 24 May 2010 and the relief sought in corresponding paragraphs of the further amended interlocutory process dated 24 May 2010 be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS – charges of contempt in respect of orders made under s 1323 of Corporations Act in the nature of Mareva orders – application to strike out charges of contempt – whether impugned charges are so clearly untenable that could not possibly succeed – construction of orders – whether person charged dealt with assets by using credit card to pay for services – no evidence of circumstances in which orders were made which may bear on construction of orders

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: R & I Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Anchorage Investments Pty Ltd (1993) 10 WAR 59
Australian Consolidated Press Limited v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483
Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (ACN 099 071 968); Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No. 3) [2006] FCA 433; (2006) 57 ASCR 307
Re Card Charge Services Limited [1989] Ch 497
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Kirkpatrick v Kotis [2004] NSWSC 1265; (2004) 62 NSWLR 567
Athens v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWCA 317
Wyszynski v Bill [2005] NSWSC 110
American Express International Inc v Commissioner of State Revenue [2004] VSCA 193; (2004) 10 VR 145
Prime Wheat Association Ltd (ACN 000 245 269) v Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1997) 42 NSWLR 505

TEXTS CITED: A Tyree, "Payment by Credit Card" (2004) 15(3) JBFLP 221

PARTIES: Plaintiff: Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Defendant: Andrew Sigalla

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/290316

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: D R Stack
Defendant: R J Bromwich SC with C A Botsman

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Conrad Gray, ASIC
Defendant: Kemp Strang

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

WHITE J

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

2009/290316 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Andrew Sigalla

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, charges the first defendant, Mr Andrew Sigalla, with 45 counts of contempt. Forty-three of the counts allege Mr Sigalla is guilty of contempt by disobeying the court's orders. Two counts charge Mr Sigalla with contempt for allegedly intending to deceive the court by swearing affidavits known to be false, or in one case also arranging for another person to swear a false affidavit.

2 At the commencement of the hearing counsel for Mr Sigalla applied for orders that the charges in each of paragraphs 14-19, 26-42 and 55-57 of the further amended statement of charge dated 24 May 2010 and the relief sought in corresponding paragraphs of the further amended interlocutory process dated 24 May…

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 Sigalla

Details

AGLC: ASIC v Sigalla [2010] NSWSC 606
Case: [2010] NSWSC 606
Decision Date: 2 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) versus Sigalla, the dispute before the Federal Court of Australia concerned charges of contempt in respect of orders made under section 1323 of the Corporations Act. These orders, in the nature of Mareva orders, were intended to prevent the defendant from disposing of assets that could potentially be used to satisfy a judgment debt. The primary legal issue the court was required to decide was whether the charges of contempt brought against the defendant were so clearly untenable that they could not possibly succeed. This hinged on the interpretation of the Mareva orders and whether the defendant had indeed dealt with assets in a manner that contravened these orders.

The court examined the construction of the orders in question and whether the defendant's use of a credit card to pay for services amounted to dealing with the assets as prohibited by the orders. The court concluded that there was no evidence presented which could assist in the proper construction of the orders. As such, the impugned charges of contempt were deemed to be so untenable that they could not possibly succeed. The court found that without clear evidence of the circumstances in which the orders were made, it was impossible to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted a breach of the orders. Consequently, the application to strike out the charges of contempt was successful.

As a result of the court's decision, the charges of contempt against the defendant were dismissed. The court held that the defendant had not acted in a manner that contravened the Mareva orders, given the lack of clarity in the orders' construction and the absence of evidence regarding the circumstances under which they were made. This ruling underscores the importance of clear and specific orders to ensure that any subsequent contempt charges can be substantiated and successfully prosecuted.

Orders