Gore v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Case
•
[2017] FCAFC 13
•13 February 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Gore v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2017] FCAFC 13
[2017] FCAFC 13
13 February 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Gore v Australian Securities and Investments Commission involved a dispute concerning the accessorial liability of Mrs Gore under sections 727(1) and (2), and 1041H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sought to hold Mrs Gore accountable for her involvement in alleged contraventions of these provisions by her husband, Mr Gore. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the Court included the elements required to establish accessorial liability under sections 727(1) and (2) and 1041H of the Corporations Act. The Court also had to consider the applicability of the Criminal Code (Cth) in determining the physical and fault elements of the offence, and whether ASIC needed to prove that no exemption from the requirement of disclosure applied to the offer of securities. Additionally, the Court was required to determine the admissibility of a transcript of an examination under section 19 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and the appropriateness of the injunction ordered under section 1324(1) of the Corporations Act.
The Court found that the Criminal Code applied to the elements of the offence, although the impact of the Code on the proceedings was not raised at first instance. The Court also held that the primary judge had correctly found Mrs Gore to be knowingly concerned in the contraventions of section 727 and had exercised their discretion appropriately in setting the length of the injunction. The Court further concluded that the primary judge's decision to order Mrs Gore to pay 80% of 95% of ASIC's costs was not manifestly unreasonable.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs in each case. The Court's decision upheld the primary judge's findings and orders, with the exception of the duration of the injunction, which was considered to be appropriate given Mrs Gore's involvement in the contraventions of section 727.
The primary legal issues before the Court included the elements required to establish accessorial liability under sections 727(1) and (2) and 1041H of the Corporations Act. The Court also had to consider the applicability of the Criminal Code (Cth) in determining the physical and fault elements of the offence, and whether ASIC needed to prove that no exemption from the requirement of disclosure applied to the offer of securities. Additionally, the Court was required to determine the admissibility of a transcript of an examination under section 19 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and the appropriateness of the injunction ordered under section 1324(1) of the Corporations Act.
The Court found that the Criminal Code applied to the elements of the offence, although the impact of the Code on the proceedings was not raised at first instance. The Court also held that the primary judge had correctly found Mrs Gore to be knowingly concerned in the contraventions of section 727 and had exercised their discretion appropriately in setting the length of the injunction. The Court further concluded that the primary judge's decision to order Mrs Gore to pay 80% of 95% of ASIC's costs was not manifestly unreasonable.
The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with costs in each case. The Court's decision upheld the primary judge's findings and orders, with the exception of the duration of the injunction, which was considered to be appropriate given Mrs Gore's involvement in the contraventions of section 727.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Corporate Law & Governance
Legal Concepts
-
Accessorial Liability
-
Breach of Contract
-
Misleading or Deceptive Conduct
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Injunction
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Application by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for an entry permit for Joshua Thompson and Dylan Howard [2025] FWC 1177
Cases Citing This Decision
374
Paschalis v Return to Work Corporation of South Australia
[2021] SASCFC 44
Cases Cited
51
Statutory Material Cited
9
Yorke v Lucas
[1985] HCA 65
Giorgianni v the Queen
[1985] HCA 29
Giorgianni v the Queen
[1985] HCA 29
Cited Sections