Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Finance and Investment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2002] WASC 260
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Secure Finance and Investment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 260
[2002] WASC 260
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of Western Australia heard an application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) against Secure Finance and Investment Services (Australia) Pty Ltd and Phillip Garry Crane. ASIC sought orders for the winding up of Secure Finance under the Corporations Law of Western Australia and the Corporations Act 2001, alleging the company operated a managed investment scheme in contravention of the law. ASIC submitted affidavits to support its application, but the respondents objected to the admissibility of the affidavits on the basis that they contained hearsay evidence.
The court had to determine whether the application was interlocutory, allowing for hearsay evidence, or final, requiring direct evidence. The court noted that while interlocutory applications may include hearsay, the relief sought here – winding up the company and scheme – was final and conclusive. The court found that the application was for final relief and thus hearsay evidence was inadmissible. The application was adjourned to allow ASIC to amend its affidavits to exclude hearsay evidence.
In conclusion, the court found that the application for winding up the company and managed investment scheme was for final relief, requiring direct evidence. The application was adjourned to allow ASIC to amend its affidavits to exclude hearsay evidence.
The court had to determine whether the application was interlocutory, allowing for hearsay evidence, or final, requiring direct evidence. The court noted that while interlocutory applications may include hearsay, the relief sought here – winding up the company and scheme – was final and conclusive. The court found that the application was for final relief and thus hearsay evidence was inadmissible. The application was adjourned to allow ASIC to amend its affidavits to exclude hearsay evidence.
In conclusion, the court found that the application for winding up the company and managed investment scheme was for final relief, requiring direct evidence. The application was adjourned to allow ASIC to amend its affidavits to exclude hearsay evidence.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Breach of Contract
-
Fiduciary Duty
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 249
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 249
Burton and the Persons Named in Schedule 1 to the Originating Process of the Plaintiffs Dated 17 April 2003 v Arcus
[2004] WASC 244
Tabruby Pty Ltd v Belbrooke Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 249
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd (No 1)
[1981] HCA 20
Re Luck
[2003] HCA 70