Budd and Australian Securities & Investments Commission

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Brown seeking review of four purported decisions made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) concerning his directorship of DSJB Group. Mr Brown had been a director of DSJB Group, which was registered by ASIC, and an external administrator was later appointed to the company. Mr Brown sought to challenge ASIC's actions or inactions relating to his disqualification and appointment as a director.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review the decisions identified by Mr Brown. This required determining whether the actions or omissions of ASIC, as alleged by Mr Brown, constituted "decisions" within the meaning of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations Act), and if so, whether those decisions were reviewable by the Tribunal under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that its jurisdiction to review decisions is conferred by specific enactments, and it does not have a general review power. It noted that section 1317B of the Corporations Act allows for applications to the Tribunal for review of certain decisions made by ASIC, but section 1317C carves out exceptions, including decisions in respect of which an appeal or review is expressly provided elsewhere in the Act, or decisions declared to be conclusive or final. The Tribunal found that Mr Brown's automatic disqualification from managing corporations under section 206B of the Corporations Act was a matter independent of ASIC's processes, and there was no legislative obligation on ASIC to "give effect" to such disqualifications. Furthermore, the onus was on the company, DSJB Group, to notify ASIC of Mr Brown's disqualification, not on ASIC to conduct its own review. Applying the principles from *Director-General of Social Services v Chaney* and *Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond*, the Tribunal concluded that the purported actions of ASIC did not possess the requisite finality or operative determination to be considered reviewable "decisions" under the relevant legislation.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the four purported decisions of ASIC were not reviewable by the Tribunal. Pursuant to section 42A(4) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Brown's application for review.