Kardas v Australian Securities Commission - [1998] FCA 1381

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of decision by ASC prohibiting applicant from managing a corporation – whether reasons for decision confusing and ambiguous – failure to give legally acceptable reasons in relation to finding that an asset valuation was misstated – whether finding of “gross incompetence” or similar conduct a prerequisite to disqualification – whether power to prohibit conditional on exercise within a reasonable time of liquidator’s report

CORPORATIONS – review of decision by ASC prohibiting applicant from managing a corporation – Corporations Law s 600 – whether reasons for decision confusing and ambiguous – failure to give legally acceptable reasons in relation to finding that an asset valuation was misstated – whether finding of “gross incompetence” or similar conduct a prerequisite to disqualification – whether power to prohibit conditional on exercise within a reasonable time of liquidator’s report

Corporations Law s 600

Cullen v Corporate Affairs Commission (1989) 7 ACLC 121 followed
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Limited v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 discussed
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 applied
Re Sheslow and Australian Securities Commission (1994) 20 AAR 161 disapproved
Laycock v Forbes (1997) 15 ACLC 1814 at 1821 followed
Blunt v Corporate Affairs Commission (No.2) (1988) 6 ACLC 1077 mentioned
Re Dawson Print Group Ltd [1987] 3 BCLC 601 mentioned
Dwyer v National Companies and Securities Commission (No.2) (1989) 7 ACLC 743 mentioned
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152 at 175 applied
Re Delonga and the Australian Securities Commission (1994) 15 ACSR 450 mentioned
Halliday v Commissioner of Corporate Affairs (Supreme Court of Victoria, unreported, 14 May 1990) mentioned
Koon Wing Lau v Calwell (1949) 80 CLR 533 applied
Giris Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1969) 119 CLR 365 applied
Re Federal Commissioner of Taxation: ex parte Australena Investments Pty Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 577 applied
Repatriation Commission v Morris (1997) 26 AAR 284 at 289 applied

EMMANUEL SPIROS KARDAS v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
NO. VG 3251 OF 1997

HEEREY J
29 OCTOBER 1998
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 3251 of 1997

BETWEEN:

EMMANUEL SPIROS KARDAS
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The decision of the Delegate of the respondent made on 30 July 1997 be set aside.
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant, including reserved costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 3251 of 1997

BETWEEN:

EMMANUEL SPIROS KARDAS
APPLICANT

AND:

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant Mr Emmanuel Kardas was a director of two companies, Supply Logistics Pty Ltd and Infobank International Pty Ltd, each of which went into liquidation. The respondent Australian Securities Commission (the Commission) served on Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kardas v Australian Securities Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1998] FCA 1381
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the applicant, Kardas, against the Australian Securities Commission. Kardas sought to overturn a decision made by the Delegate of the respondent on 30 July 1997, which had implications for his financial dealings and possibly his professional standing. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision and determining whether it was legally sound and procedurally fair.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the decision of the Delegate was made in accordance with the applicable laws and whether proper procedures were followed. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the Delegate had the authority to make the decision and if the process leading to the decision was fair and just. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed and that it was made without proper consideration of all relevant factors.

In examining the matter, the court found that the decision of the Delegate was not in line with the required legal standards. The Delegate had acted outside their authority and did not follow the necessary procedures, leading to an unfair outcome for the applicant. The court highlighted several procedural errors and a lack of consideration of critical evidence, which together undermined the validity of the decision. Based on these findings, the court decided to set aside the decision made by the Delegate.

The court's final order was to set aside the decision of the Delegate of the respondent made on 30 July 1997. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the applicant, including reserved costs. This ruling provided relief to the applicant and ensured that the decision-making process was rectified in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Delegate of the respondent made on 30 July 1997 be set aside.

The respondent pay the costs of the applicant, including reserved costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 3251 of 1997

BETWEEN:	EMMANUEL SPIROS KARDAS APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:		HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:		29 OCTOBER 1998
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 3251 of 1997

JUDGE:	HEEREY J
DATE:	29 OCTOBER 1998
PLACE:	MELBOURNE