Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Ltd

The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Ltd involved the defendant company, Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Ltd, which held an Australian financial services licence. The company had contravened section 961K of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being the responsible licensee of representatives who provided personal advice to retail clients without considering the best interest obligations. The contraventions occurred between 6 October 2015 and 31 May 2019, and the personal advice was related to retaining, acquiring, or rolling over interests in certain financial products. The contraventions were agreed upon by both parties.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the proposed declaration of contravention and the quantum of the pecuniary penalty were appropriate in the circumstances. The court had to consider the agreed statement of facts, joint submissions, and jointly proposed declarations and orders filed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the defendant company.

The court found the proposed declaration and quantum of penalty to be appropriate. The declaration stated that the defendant contravened section 961K(2) of the Corporations Act on 53 occasions by being the responsible licensee of representatives who contravened sections 961B(1) and 961G of the Act. The court also accepted the joint submission that an aggregate penalty of $7.2 million for the 53 contraventions was appropriate. The parties had considered various factors in arriving at this figure, including the maximum penalty that could be imposed under the Act at the time of the contraventions, the nature of the conduct, and the 'course of conduct' principle.

The court made orders in the terms sought by the parties, including an order for the defendant to pay pecuniary penalties of $7.2 million, comply with compliance program orders, and pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceeding. The orders also included provisions for the defendant to obtain leave of the court before enforcing any orders for pecuniary penalties or costs. The court found the proposed declaration and quantum of penalty to be appropriate and made orders accordingly.