Hawcroft and Australian Securities & Investments Commission

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Maree Hawcroft against a banning order issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). ASIC had banned Ms Hawcroft from controlling or performing any function involved in carrying on a financial services business for a period of one year. The dispute arose from alleged misstatements made by Ms Hawcroft in a Statement of Personal Information (SPI) provided to ASIC, which ASIC considered indicated she was not a "fit and proper" person to be involved in the financial services industry.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Hawcroft was a "fit and proper" person under section 920A(1)(d) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). ASIC also sought to introduce a new ground for the ban, arguing that Ms Hawcroft was not adequately trained or competent to provide financial services, or perform relevant functions, under section 920A(1)(da) of the Corporations Act. The Tribunal was required to determine if this new ground could be raised on review and, if so, whether it supported the banning order.

The Tribunal considered Ms Hawcroft's admissions that she had made errors in the SPI, which she attributed to genuine human error and misplaced reliance on her former legal advisors. While acknowledging her responsibility for the form, Ms Hawcroft denied any dishonesty and highlighted her prompt notification to ASIC of the errors. ASIC contended that the misstatements demonstrated a lack of diligence and professionalism, supporting the finding that Ms Hawcroft was not fit and proper. The Tribunal also considered ASIC's submission that Ms Hawcroft's lack of specific financial services background, as evidenced by her own statements about shares and shareholdings being a "foreign language" to her, could also support the new ground of inadequate training and competence.

The Tribunal affirmed ASIC's decision to issue a banning order against Ms Hawcroft. The Tribunal found that Ms Hawcroft was not a fit and proper person, and also found that she was not adequately trained or competent to perform the functions in question, thereby supporting the ban under section 920A(1)(da) of the Corporations Act. Consequently, the banning order for one year was upheld.