King v Australian Securities and Investments Commission

KING
v
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION & ANOR
[2020] HCASL 117
B46/2019

The applicant was knowingly concerned in contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). He seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Morrison and McMurdo JJA and Applegarth J) varying pecuniary penalty and costs orders against him but refusing to vary a disqualification order against him. He requires an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave.
The orders against which the applicant seeks special leave to appeal have been set aside by this Court and, in their place, the applicant has been ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal[1]. Furthermore, the grounds sought to be agitated in support of the appeal are entirely unpersuasive. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time required.
[1]Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King (2020) 94 ALJR 293 at 307 [69] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ (Nettle and Gordon JJ agreeing at 307 [71]).
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

V.M Bell G.A.A Nettle

24 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Australian Securities and Investments Commission involved the applicant, who was found to have knowingly participated in breaches of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The applicant sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which varied pecuniary penalty and costs orders against him but did not alter a disqualification order. Additionally, the applicant requested an extension of time to file his application for special leave.

The central legal issues before the court were whether special leave to appeal should be granted, and if so, whether the application should be considered despite the applicant's failure to meet the time limits. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal's decision to vary the pecuniary penalty and costs orders was unjust and that the grounds for appeal were strong enough to warrant a review by the High Court. The respondent, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, contended that the applicant's appeal was without merit and that the time limits for filing the application should not be extended.

The court found that the orders against which the applicant sought special leave had already been set aside, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court also found the grounds for the appeal to be unpersuasive, thereby making it futile to grant the extension of time required. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed with costs. The court's reasoning was grounded in the futility of the appeal and the applicant's failure to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success. The court ultimately upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the applicant's application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established