Invast Financial Services Pty Ltd v Pseven International DWC LLC

The applicant, Invast Financial Services Pty Ltd, sought summary judgment against Pseven International DWC LLC and another party regarding alleged contraventions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), and the Australian Consumer Law (NSW). The dispute centred on contracts for differences (CFDs) between the applicant and the first respondent, where the applicant claimed that the first respondent failed to meet margin calls and other financial obligations. The applicant alleged that the second respondent made misleading or deceptive representations that these obligations would be met, causing the applicant to suffer loss. The court was required to determine whether CFDs are considered "financial products" under the ASIC Act, if the ASIC Act's s 12DA(1) applied, whether the ACL applied, and if the operation of the ACL was excluded by s 131A of the Competition and Consumer Act.

The court found that CFDs are indeed financial products under s 12BAA(1) of the ASIC Act, and that s 12DA(1) was engaged. Regarding the ACL, the court held that the representations made by the second respondent constituted conduct in trade or commerce that was misleading or deceptive, and that the applicant suffered loss as a result. The court also found that the second respondent was involved in the contraventions as he made the representations on behalf of the first respondent, acting as the controlling mind and the sole point of contact. The court granted the application for summary judgment against the second respondent, who had defaulted in filing a defence and providing evidence. The court referred questions regarding the amount of damages, interest on damages, and costs to a Registrar for inquiry and report.

The court ordered that the proceeding be listed for further hearing after the receipt of the Registrar's report. The court's decision addressed the legal issues concerning the nature of CFDs, the applicability of relevant legislation, and the involvement of the second respondent in the alleged contraventions.