KPMG (a Firm) v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [2011] HCATrans 9
Case
•
[2011] HCATrans 9
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
KPMG (a Firm) v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [2011] HCATrans 9 [2011] HCATrans 9
[2011] HCATrans 9
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal in the matter of KPMG (a Firm) against the Commonwealth of Australia and another party. The dispute concerned the interpretation and application of certain provisions within the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth) and the *Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001* (Cth), specifically in relation to the conduct of auditors and the powers of ASIC.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants, KPMG, had established sufficient grounds to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court. This involved considering whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of the statutory obligations imposed on auditors and the scope of ASIC's investigative and enforcement powers under the relevant legislation.
The Court considered submissions from both parties regarding the alleged errors of law made by the Full Federal Court. The applicants sought to demonstrate that their case raised important questions of law or that the Full Federal Court's decision was demonstrably wrong. The respondents argued against the grant of special leave, contending that the Full Federal Court's decision was correct and did not warrant further appellate review.
Special leave to appeal was refused.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicants, KPMG, had established sufficient grounds to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Federal Court. This involved considering whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of the statutory obligations imposed on auditors and the scope of ASIC's investigative and enforcement powers under the relevant legislation.
The Court considered submissions from both parties regarding the alleged errors of law made by the Full Federal Court. The applicants sought to demonstrate that their case raised important questions of law or that the Full Federal Court's decision was demonstrably wrong. The respondents argued against the grant of special leave, contending that the Full Federal Court's decision was correct and did not warrant further appellate review.
Special leave to appeal was refused.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Constitutional Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
High Court Bulletin [2011] HCAB 1
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0