Chapel Road Pty Limited v Australian Securities Investments Commission (No 10)

The case before the court involved Chapel Road Pty Limited, the plaintiff, and the Australian Securities Investments Commission (ASIC), the defendant. The plaintiff sought damages for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, arising from ASIC's actions in revoking its security dealer's licence. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's allegations against ASIC met the legal requirements for these torts.

The central legal issues included whether the plaintiff had properly pleaded its case and whether it was permissible to aggregate the conduct of various ASIC officers to establish the tort of misfeasance in public office. Additionally, the court needed to assess the statutory framework, the elements of the tort of misfeasance in public office, and whether the plaintiff's approach was viable. Further, the court had to decide whether factual findings could be made on the basis of the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding the credibility of witnesses and expert evidence. Specifically, the court examined the practices of ASIC in 1999, the views of an expert witness, and the application of Regulation 7.3.02 of the Corporations Law.

The court found that the plaintiff's approach to establishing the tort of misfeasance in public office was not permissible. The plaintiff's attempt to aggregate the conduct of various ASIC officers was not supported by the law, and the court held that each officer's actions needed to be assessed individually. The court also found that the factual findings sought by the plaintiff could not be made on the available evidence, particularly in light of credit issues and the inferences drawn from the evidence. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the requisite malice or improper motivation for the revocation of its licence. As such, the claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office failed. The court ordered that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay ASIC's costs.