Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis (No 9)

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sued Mr and Mrs Cassimatis, who were directors of Storm, a financial advisory company. The company was in administration and liquidation, and the case concerned whether the respondents contravened s 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by causing or permitting inappropriate financial advice to be given to certain investors. ASIC sought declarations, pecuniary penalties, disqualification orders, and injunctions. The central issue was whether ASIC should be granted relief beyond mere declarations of contravention, considering the nature and consequences of the conduct of the respondents.

The court examined whether the respondents' conduct materially prejudiced the interests of Storm, as required by s 180(1) of the Act. It concluded that the conduct was serious and likely to be discovered, exposing Storm to significant risks. The court held that exposing Storm to such risks adversely affected its interests. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the devastating consequences for investors. It concluded that relief beyond declarations was necessary to achieve the aim of protecting the public and ensuring compliance with the Act.

The court granted the relief sought by ASIC, including disqualification orders preventing the respondents from holding an AFSL or providing financial services under any AFSL for ten years. The court found that declarations alone were insufficient in these circumstances, as they would not achieve the aim of protecting the public or ensuring compliance with the Act. The court emphasized the seriousness of the contravening conduct, its duration, and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders required the parties to provide agreed draft orders within seven days, as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.