Legal Research
Cases
Davies v Australian Securities Commission

Davies v Australian Securities Commission

Link copied

Case Copied 30 August 1995 58 min read

Contents

On this page

CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board - appeal by auditor from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal from decision of Board dismissing application by Australian Securities Commission that company auditor be dealt with under s1292.

CORPORATIONS LAW - Auditors - duty to carry out and perform adequately statutory duties - construction of s1292(1)(d) of the Corporations Law considered - whether audit certificate to statutory accounts of a Workcover Insurer misleading - whether necessary for Administrative Appeals Tribunal to consider whether auditor acted reasonably.

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workcover Insurance - whether statutory funds of Insurer held on statutory trusts - scheme of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) in relation to statutory funds of insurers considered.

Workers' Compensation Act (1987) NSW: ss195-201, 205-207, 208A
Corporations Law: ss1292, 1317B(2)
Companies (NSW) Code: ss267, 285
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act: s44(1)

Pacific Acceptance Corporation Ltd v Forsyth (1970) 92 WN 29; referred to
AWA Ltd v Daniels (1992) 7 ASCR 759; referred to.
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; applied
Hughes and Vale Pty Ltd v The State of NSW (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127; applied
Stasos v Tax Agents' Board of NSW (1990) 90 ATC 4950; followed
Re Su and Tax Agents' Board of SA (1982) 82 ATC 4284; followed
Re Elizabethan Theatre Trust (1991) 102 ALR 681; discussed
Occidental Life Insurance Company of Australia v Bank of Melbourne (1993) 7 ANZ Insurance Cases; discussed
Wood Preservation Ltd v Prior (Inspector of Taxes) (1969) 1 WLR 1077; distinguished
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Qld) v Joliffe (1920) 28 CLR 178; applied
Newcastle Club Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 53 FCR 1; applied
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Livingston [1965] AC 694; referred to
Fouche v The Superannuation Fund Board (1952) 88 CLR 609; distinguished
Harmer v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 173 CLR 264; distinguished
Registrar of the Accident Compensation Tribunal v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 178 CLR 145; discussed
Ingram v Ingram (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 407; referred to

DAVIES v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION and COMPANIES AUDITORS AND LIQUIDATORS DISCIPLINARY BOARD

No NG312 of 1994
CORAM: HILL J
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATED: 30 AUGUST 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )     No NG312 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:DAVIES

Applicant

AND:AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION

First Respondent

COMPANIES AUDITORS AND LIQUIDATORS DISCIPLINARY BOARD

Second Respondent

CORAM:    HILL J
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATED:    30 AUGUST 1995

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(1)The decision of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

(2)The first respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davies v Australian Securities Commission 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] FCA 674
Decision Date: 30 AUGUST 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Davies v Australian Securities Commission, the appellant, a licensed company auditor, sought to challenge a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that upheld a decision of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board. The dispute arose from a complaint lodged by the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) against the appellant auditor. The ASC sought to have the appellant dealt with under section 1292 of the Corporations Act, following allegations of misconduct in the performance of his duties. The primary issue before the court was whether the AAT had correctly applied the law in affirming the Board's decision to dismiss the ASC's application.

The court examined whether the AAT's decision was legally sound and whether it appropriately balanced the principles of natural justice and the legislative framework governing disciplinary proceedings against auditors. The appellant argued that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and in failing to consider certain mitigating factors. The ASC, on the other hand, contended that the AAT's decision was correct and that the Board had sufficient grounds to dismiss the application. The court needed to determine whether the AAT had exercised its discretion appropriately and whether the Board's decision was supported by the evidence.

After a thorough review of the proceedings and the evidence, the court found that the AAT had applied the correct legal principles and exercised its discretion reasonably. The court held that the AAT's decision to uphold the Board's dismissal of the ASC's application was well-founded. The evidence presented to the Board demonstrated that the ASC had failed to establish the necessary grounds for disciplinary action under section 1292. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the AAT was affirmed. The court's decision underscored the importance of a fair and balanced application of the law in disciplinary proceedings against licensed auditors.

Orders