Dimitropoulos and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Taxation)

This matter concerned applications by Mr Dimitropoulos for a stay of two decisions made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) on 23 June 2017, and for confidentiality orders in relation to the review proceedings. The ASIC decisions permanently banned Mr Dimitropoulos from providing financial services under the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) and from engaging in credit activities under the *National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009* (Cth). Mr Dimitropoulos sought these orders on the grounds that he had good prospects of contradicting ASIC's findings, that he would suffer significant financial and reputational detriment if the decisions were not stayed, and that the public interest would be adequately served by his undertaking to preserve the status quo pending the final determination of his review applications.

The court was required to determine whether to grant a stay of ASIC's banning orders and whether to impose confidentiality orders on the review proceedings. The legal issues revolved around the applicant's prospects of success in the substantive review, the balance of convenience, and the public interest considerations relevant to both the stay and the confidentiality applications. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the apprehended reputational damage, which Mr Dimitropoulos contended would be severe in his particular circumstances, justified the extensive confidentiality orders sought, including the use of a pseudonym and restrictions on publication and attendance at hearings.

In its reasoning, the Senior Member noted that while apprehended reputational damage could be a factor, it would generally not be sufficient to warrant the broad confidentiality orders requested. The court considered the grounds advanced for the stay and confidentiality applications, which were largely common, and found that the applicant's contention regarding severe reputational disadvantage in his specific circumstances was a key element of his argument. The court also had regard to the statutory framework governing ASIC's powers and the public interest in transparency of financial services regulation.

The applications for a stay of the ASIC decisions and for confidentiality orders were refused.