Bringans and Australian Securities and Investments Commission

This matter concerned an application by Mr Bringans for a stay of a banning order made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banning order prohibited Mr Bringans from providing any financial services, controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business, or performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business. The application was heard by G Lazanas SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether its discretion to grant a stay was enlivened, and if so, whether it was desirable to grant a stay for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of Mr Bringans' application for review. In considering these issues, the Tribunal was required to assess Mr Bringans' prospects of success on review, the potential for reputational damage and financial hardship, whether the hearing could be rendered nugatory without a stay, and relevant public interest considerations, including the anticipated delay in the hearing.

The Tribunal reasoned that a stay is not automatically granted and requires a demonstration that it is necessary to secure the effectiveness of the review. While acknowledging the potential for significant financial hardship and reputational damage to Mr Bringans, the Tribunal found his prospects of success on review to be weak. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that public interest considerations, particularly the general deterrence effect of banning orders, weighed heavily against granting a stay. The Tribunal concluded that even if its discretion was engaged, it was not desirable to grant a stay in the circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused Mr Bringans' application for a stay of the ASIC banning order.