IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QG3004 of 1998
BETWEEN:
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
APPLICANTAND:
ROSS MATTHEW FULLER
RESPONDENT
JUDGE(S):
DRUMMOND J
DATE:
19 FEBRUARY 1998
PLACE:
BRISBANE
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application by the Australian Securities Commission for a warrant under section 530C, of the Corporations law, directed to a Mr Fuller. Mr Fuller on 3 February became the sole director and the secretary of Australian Slip Control Pty Limited, 3 February 1997.
The company went into liquidation on 17 June of that year. The company traded for a relatively short time, being registered only in April 1995. Mr Pascoe, an accountant employed in the office of the liquidator, Mr Anthony Milton Sims, says that his investigations show that in carrying on its franchise business, the company received about half a million dollars from various franchisees before trading closed, a number of whom have complained to the liquidator about their treatment by the company.
There is material before me now which, if I could place reliance upon it, would justify the issue of the warrant sought. However, given the gravity of the intrusion that a warrant makes lawful, I am not prepared to issue the warrant on the material presently before me, because I do not have the confidence in its reliability which a court, in my opinion, should have before taking the draconic step sought. By way of example, Mr Pascoe has sworn an affidavit in paragraph 7 and 8 of which he says that:
The only records I have received to date from Mr Ross Fuller in relation to the company are [certain limited specified bank records].
It is apparent that that is inaccurate and quite misleading, because Mr Pascoe in his oral evidence, said that he had received other documents in relation to the company from Mr Fuller, namely a bundle of paid and unpaid creditor invoices and that although he has not taken the trouble to confirm this, he may well have received from Mr Fuller a list of the company's creditors, albeit later than he originally anticipated when he discussed delivery by Mr Fuller to the liquidator of the company's records, in a telephone conversation he had on the day of the liquidation.
What Mr Pascoe says in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his affidavit, is inaccurate in a further respect, he did not in truth receive the bank records listed in paragraph 8 of his affidavit from Mr Ross Fuller as he there swears was the case. He received them from a Mr Pearce, the liquidator's Brisbane agent. Mr Pascoe says he believes Mr Pearce received the documents from a Mr Hannon, who Mr Pascoe further says he believes is or was a franchisee of the company. And Mr Pascoe says he believes that Mr Hannon was asked by Mr Fuller, in circumstances not disclosed by anything put before me, to hand those documents over to the liquidator.
Further, the evidence that Mr Pascoe relies upon…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Securities Commission v Fuller, Ross Matthew and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1998] FCA 145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence provided by the ASC to justify the issuance of the warrant, as well as the interpretation and application of section 530C of the Corporations Law. Drummond J expressed concern over the accuracy and completeness of the evidence presented, particularly noting discrepancies in the affidavit of Mr Pascoe, an accountant involved in the liquidation process. The court also examined the propriety of issuing a warrant that authorises not only the seizure of material but also its delivery to the liquidator, considering the requirements of section 530C(4) of the Corporations Law.
Drummond J concluded that the evidence provided by the ASC was not sufficiently reliable to justify issuing the warrant. The court highlighted the importance of obtaining sworn verification from key witnesses, such as Mr Pearce, and expressed its preference for a more thorough affidavit that would provide the necessary confidence in the information's reliability. Drummond J suggested that the ASC could revisit the application once appropriate evidence was obtained. The court further discussed the interpretation of section 530C, concluding that a warrant could authorise both the seizure and delivery of material to the liquidator, provided that the material is used solely for the purposes of assisting in the administration of the liquidation.
The court adjourned the matter to allow the ASC to gather additional evidence and decided to follow the precedent set by Northrop J in Morton v Robbins & Ors (1996) 14 ACLC 1197, without imposing conditions on the warrant. Drummond J left the door open for the ASC to reapply at an earlier date if they deemed it appropriate. The decision underscores the importance of reliable evidence and the careful consideration required before authorising the significant intrusion permitted by a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Law.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.