Cassidy and Australian Securities and Investments Commission

The applicant, Cassidy, sought a stay of a decision made by a delegate of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to ban him from providing financial services for six years. This ban followed findings that Cassidy had contravened sections 946A, 946B, and 1041G of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), including engaging in dishonest conduct. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the application for a stay of the banning decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether a stay of the ASIC decision was necessary to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of Cassidy's application for review, and whether it was desirable to grant such a stay, taking into account the interests of affected persons. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the impact of the publication of the banning decision by ASIC, the applicant's current circumstances of no longer acting as a financial advisor and being in the process of selling his business, and the potential financial and reputational damage.

Deputy President Bernard J McCabe P reasoned that the Tribunal has the power under section 41(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to restrain ASIC from publicising a reviewable decision, as such publicity is an aspect of the decision's implementation. However, the power to grant a stay is to secure the effectiveness of the hearing. In this instance, Cassidy had already ceased providing financial services and was nearing the completion of selling his business. His primary concern regarding publicity was its potential to negatively impact the sale price by spooking clients, as the sale contract included a provision for price reduction based on business billings. The Tribunal noted that while reputational damage and financial consequences were significant, the applicant's cessation of business and the nature of his concerns did not demonstrate that a stay was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the review hearing itself.

The Tribunal refused the stay application.