Australian Securities and Investments Commission v One Tech Media Ltd (No 6)

The case involved the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) as the plaintiff against One Tech Media Ltd and other defendants, with the primary focus on One Tech Media Ltd. The dispute revolved around allegations of misconduct in the supply of financial services, specifically concerning binary options, and the subsequent legal actions and penalties sought by ASIC. The Federal Court of Australia was the forum for this litigation.

The legal issues before the court included the imposition of a pecuniary penalty on One Tech Media Ltd for breaches of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), as well as the imposition of disqualification orders on certain individuals from managing corporations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Additionally, the court was asked to consider the grant of permanent injunctions preventing the defendants from carrying on a financial services business, as well as the question of costs, specifically whether unsuccessful defendants should bear the costs of successful defendants.

The court determined that the maximum penalty of $1.8 million for One Tech Media Ltd was justified due to the nature and extent of the misconduct, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the lack of previous similar conduct. Regarding the disqualification orders, the court found that permanent disqualification for Eustace and disqualification for 15 years for Ida were appropriate, taking into account the Santow principles and the factors outlined in Ekamper. The court also granted permanent injunctions against the defendants from engaging in financial services businesses. However, the court refused the application for Sanderson or Bullock Orders, which would have required unsuccessful defendants to pay the costs of successful defendants, finding that it was not fair and reasonable to impose such liability on them.

In summary, the court upheld the majority of ASIC's claims, imposing significant penalties and disqualification orders, but declined to impose costs liability on unsuccessful defendants.