Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mayfair Wealth Partners Pty Ltd

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) brought proceedings against Mayfair Wealth Partners Pty Ltd, alleging that Mayfair engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the promotion of its financial products. The case was heard via telephone due to COVID-19 restrictions, with ASIC seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain Mayfair from promoting, receiving investments in, or issuing, certain financial products. Mayfair argued that such an injunction would be overly burdensome and instead offered an undertaking to cease certain promotional activities and to provide investors with a notice of the risks associated with the products.

The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding Mayfair's conduct, whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction, and if so, the appropriate terms of any such injunction. The court found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding Mayfair's conduct, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting an injunction to protect consumers. However, the terms of the injunction proposed by ASIC would have disproportionately impeded Mayfair's business pending trial, which the court was concerned to avoid.

Accordingly, the court granted an interlocutory injunction in terms that were less burdensome to Mayfair, while still protecting consumers. The injunction restrained Mayfair from using certain phrases in its advertising, promoting or marketing the specified financial products, and required Mayfair to provide prospective investors with a notice detailing the risks associated with the products. The costs of ASIC's application for interlocutory relief were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted.

This decision underscores the court's focus on balancing the need to protect consumers from potentially misleading conduct with the need to avoid unduly burdening a business pending trial. The specific terms of any interlocutory injunction will depend on the particular circumstances of the case, and the court will consider both the potential harm to consumers and the impact on the defendant's business in determining the appropriate relief.