Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Storm Financial Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) (No 2)

The case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Storm Financial Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liq) (No 2) involved the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and several financial institutions, including the Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, and Westpac Banking Corporation. The dispute centered on ASIC's decision to amend its claims, shifting from seeking compensation for investors under sections 1325(2) and (3) of the Corporations Act 2001 to pursuing an injunction and declaration under section 1324 of the same Act. The legal issues before the court were whether the amended claims could proceed as they were and whether the original claims required the identification of specific individuals who suffered loss. The court also had to consider the application for summary judgment, dismissal, or a permanent stay of the proceedings under sections 31A and 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 20 Rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules.

The court ruled that the applications for summary judgment, dismissal, or a stay of the proceedings were dismissed. The court held that the injunction under section 1324 of the Act was not subject to the normal equitable principles. The overlap between the current proceeding and other related proceedings was no longer present, and there was no longer a justification for joint case management. The court further noted that ASIC's change in position regarding the proceedings could impact future case management, including whether the proceedings should be heard together or separately.

The court ordered that the notices of motion filed by each of the three Banks be dismissed. The decision highlighted the applicability of section 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act, which allows the court to give judgment for a respondent if the applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. It also considered Order 20 Rule 5 of the Federal Court Rules, which allows a proceeding to be stayed or dismissed if it is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court's process. The court concluded that the Banks had not specified any particular claim for relief in the proceedings, and thus, the strike-out applications were to be dealt with based on the whole proceedings.