Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Financial Systems and Research Pty Ltd - [2011] FCA 1101

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Financial Systems & Research Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1101

Citation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Financial Systems & Research Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1101

Parties: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v IGNITE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS & RESEARCH PTY LTD ACN 091 752 920

File number(s): QUD 84 of 2009

Judge: GREENWOOD J

Date of judgment: 23 September 2011

Catchwords:
CORPORATIONS – consideration of ss 19 and 70 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – consideration of the disposition of reserved costs consequent upon the making of a consent order for the disposition of the substantive relief sought by the plaintiff in the proceeding

COSTS – consideration of the principles to be applied in the exercise of the discretion as to costs in circumstances where the substantive relief is resolved by a consent order and where no hearing on the merits has taken place

Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), ss 19 and 70

Cases cited: Australian Securities Commission v Aust‑Home Investments Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 194 – cited
Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia: Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 – cited and quoted
Aussie Red Equipment Pty Ltd v Antsent Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1641 - cited
One.Tel Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 270 - cited
ACCC v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2006] FCA 396 – cited

Date of hearing: Heard on the papers

Date of last submissions: 21 February 2011

Place: Brisbane

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 56

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr T Sullivan SC

Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Mr H Copley, Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Solicitor for the Defendant: Mr S Russell, Russell and Company

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 84 of 2009

BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Plaintiff

AND:
IGNITE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS & RESEARCH PTY LTD ACN 091 752 920
Defendant

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE OF ORDER:

23 SEPTEMBER 2011

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Pursuant to s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Division 1.3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 the Court directs that judgment in the matter be pronounced by the Court to the parties electronically without requiring the parties to incur the cost of appearing before the Court to receive judgment.
2.The defendant pay 75% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

QUD 84 of 2009

BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
Plaintiff

AND:
IGNITE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS & RESEARCH PTY LTD ACN 091 752 920
Defendant

JUDGE:

GREENWOOD J

DATE:

23 SEPTEMBER 2011

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background

These proceedings concern the disposition of reserved costs of and incidental…

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 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Fi...

Details

AGLC: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Financial Systems and Research Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1101
Case: [2011] FCA 1101
Decision Date: 23 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) brought proceedings against Ignite Financial Systems and Research Pty Ltd (Ignite) for alleged breaches of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). The dispute centred on the disposition of reserved costs following the making of a consent order for the substantive relief sought by ASIC. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court involved interpreting sections 19 and 70 of the ASIC Act and determining the principles applicable to the exercise of the court's discretion in awarding costs where the substantive relief is resolved by a consent order, and no hearing on the merits has occurred. The court needed to decide the appropriate proportion of costs to be awarded to ASIC and whether the reserved costs should be considered in the context of the consent order.

The court found that the consent order effectively resolved the substantive relief sought by ASIC, resulting in a partial victory. Given the absence of a hearing on the merits, the court considered it appropriate to award 75% of ASIC's costs of and incidental to the proceeding. This decision balanced the need to recognise ASIC's efforts in pursuing the case while also taking into account the procedural context of the consent order. The court's decision to award 75% of costs reflected a fair and reasonable outcome under the circumstances.

The court ordered that judgment be pronounced electronically without the need for the parties to appear before the court. Additionally, Ignite was directed to pay 75% of ASIC's costs of and incidental to the proceeding. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 37P of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Division 1.3 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 the Court directs that judgment in the matter be pronounced by the Court to the parties electronically without requiring the parties to incur the cost of appearing before the Court to receive judgment.

2. The defendant pay 75% of the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:		Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Ignite Financial Systems & Research Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 1101
Parties:		AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v IGNITE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS & RESEARCH PTY LTD ACN 091 752 920
File number(s):		QUD 84 of 2009
Judge:		GREENWOOD J
Date of judgment:		23 September 2011
Catchwords:		CORPORATIONS – consideration of ss 19 and 70 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – consideration of the disposition of reserved costs consequent upon the making of a consent order for the disposition of the substantive relief sought by the plaintiff in the proceeding COSTS – consideration of the principles to be applied in the exercise of the discretion as to costs in circumstances where the substantive relief is resolved by a consent order and where no hearing on the merits has taken place
Legislation:		Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), ss 19 and 70
Cases cited:		Australian Securities Commission v Aust‑Home Investments Ltd (1993) 44 FCR 194 – cited Re The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Commonwealth of Australia: Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 – cited and quoted Aussie Red Equipment Pty Ltd v Antsent Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1641 - cited One.Tel Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 270 - cited ACCC v Contact Plus Group Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2006] FCA 396 – cited
Date of hearing:	Heard on the papers
Date of last submissions:	21 February 2011
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	56
Counsel for the Plaintiff:	Mr T Sullivan SC
Solicitor for the Plaintiff:	Mr H Copley, Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Solicitor for the Defendant:	Mr S Russell, Russell and Company

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 84 of 2009

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION Plaintiff
AND:	IGNITE FINANCIAL SYSTEMS & RESEARCH PTY LTD ACN 091 752 920 Defendant

JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 SEPTEMBER 2011
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE:	23 SEPTEMBER 2011
PLACE:	BRISBANE