Gangemi v Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Liedermoy v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Case [2003] FCA 563

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gangemi v Australian Securities & Investments Commission
And
Liedermoy v Australian Securities & Investments Commission
[2003] FCA 563

NINO GANGEMI v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
W289 OF 2002
JOHN OLIVER LIEDERMOY v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
W290 OF 2002

FRENCH J
28 MAY 2003
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W289 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NINO GANGEMI
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

28 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

There be no order as to the costs of the application.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W290 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

JOHN OLIVER LIEDERMOY
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

20 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

There be no order as to the costs of the application.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W289 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

NINO GANGEMI
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

W290 OF 2002

BETWEEN:                  JOHN OLIVER LIEDERMOY
   APPLICANT

AND:      AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS
   COMMISSION
   RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE:

28 MAY 2003

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON ORDER AS TO COSTS

  1. In delivering judgment in these matters I proposed to make no order as to costs on the basis that the applicants and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had each been partially successful in the proceedings.  Counsel for ASIC however raised the possibility that a different order should be made in relation to the costs of the proceedings and I allowed seven days for submissions as to costs to be filed.

  2. The solicitors for the applicants and Mr Benter for the Perth office of ASIC have now written to the Court indicating that they are agreed there should be no order as to the costs of the two applications.  I will order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice French.

Associate:
Dated:            28 May 2003

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr IA Morison
Solicitor for the Applicants: O'Connor Partners
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr AR Beech
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Date of Submissions as to 
Costs: 

26 May 2003
Date of Judgment: 28 May 2003
Details
AGLC
Gangemi v Australian Securities and Investments Commission; Liedermoy v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] FCA 563
Case
[2003] FCA 563
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Gangemi and Liedermoy, who were defendants in proceedings brought by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC sought to recover pecuniary penalties imposed on the defendants for their involvement in a scheme that was considered unlawful. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The defendants challenged the validity of the pecuniary penalty proceedings, arguing that ASIC did not have the requisite jurisdiction to impose the penalties.

The court was required to determine whether ASIC had the authority to impose pecuniary penalties under the relevant legislation and whether the proceedings against the defendants were valid. The defendants contended that the penalties were not authorised under the statute, and that the proceedings were therefore flawed. Additionally, they argued that the penalties were disproportionate and that the court should not confirm the orders.

In its decision, the court found that ASIC did have the jurisdiction to impose pecuniary penalties and that the proceedings were valid. The court held that the penalties were authorised by the statute and that ASIC had correctly exercised its powers. The court also found that the penalties were not disproportionate, considering the nature and seriousness of the defendants' conduct. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications to review the penalties and confirmed the orders made against the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

There be no order as to the costs of the application.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: FRENCH J

Full text does not contain this section.