Integrated Financial Group Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

[2005] HCATrans 507

[2005] HCATrans 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  Nos P72 and P73 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

THE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL GROUP PTY LTD

Applicant

and

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.49 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant issued a writ against the respondent in which it sought delivery up of a back-up tape that the applicant’s agent had mistakenly given to the respondent.  The applicant also sought an interlocutory injunction in the Western Australian Supreme Court to order the respondent to deliver up to the Court the tape, to restrain the respondent from disclosing or using the information contained in the tape and to require the respondent to file and serve an affidavit that identifies the details of anyone to whom the information on the tape had been disclosed.  The respondent sought an order to dismiss the action and to enter judgment for the respondent with costs.  The Court entered summary judgment for the respondent under O 16 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court because the respondent had demonstrated that it had a good and complete defence to the applicant's claim, because the respondent could lawfully require the production of the tape under s 33 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (“the Act”), and because the respondent was lawfully entitled to receive, retain and deal with the tape under s 37 of the Act.

The applicant appealed the summary judgment.  The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia dismissed the applicant’s appeal because the question to be tried had been adversely answered against the applicant at the interlocutory stage so that nothing remained to be tried.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that the Full Court had erred in law in finding that the respondent had a defence to the applicant’s claim.  But the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Full Court are not attended with doubt.

An appeal has no prospects of success and does not raise a question of law of public importance.

The application is dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.49 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED