Esined No 9 Pty Limited v Moylan Retirement Solutions Pty Ltd; P&S Kauter Investments Pty Ltd ATF the Kauter Superannuation Fund v Moylan Retirement Solutions Pty Ltd; Graeme Manning v Arch Underwriting At Lloyds..

Esined No 9 Pty Limited and others brought proceedings against Moylan Retirement Solutions Pty Ltd, the deregistered investment advisory firm, and its insurers. The former clients sought compensation for losses incurred due to the alleged negligent advice provided by the firm. The defendants, the insurers, argued that statements made by the principal of the investment advisory firm to the clients could not be admitted as evidence against them. The primary legal issue was whether the statements made by the principal of the investment advisory firm to the clients constituted hearsay and, if so, whether they could be admitted as evidence against the insurers under the Corporations Act 2001, s 601AG. The court had to determine if these statements were admissions that could be admissible against the insurers in proceedings brought under the Corporations Act.

The court examined the nature of the statements made by the principal of the investment advisory firm and whether they could be considered admissions under the Evidence Act 1995. The court found that the statements were indeed hearsay but considered whether they could be admitted under the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that the statements were admissions that were admissible against the insurers in Corporations Act, s 601AG proceedings. The court relied on the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995, ss 81 and 87, which provide exceptions to the hearsay rule for admissions. The court held that the statements were relevant and could be admitted as evidence against the insurers.

The court ultimately decided that the statements made by the principal of the investment advisory firm to the clients were admissible as admissions against the insurers in the Corporations Act, s 601AG proceedings. The court found that the statements met the criteria for admissions under the Evidence Act 1995 and were relevant to the issues in the case. The insurers' argument that the statements should not be admitted as evidence was dismissed. The court allowed the statements to be admitted as evidence against the insurers, paving the way for the former clients to proceed with their claims for compensation.