MACLEOD -v- AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION [1999] WASCA 35
| Link to Appeal : |
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 35 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1190/1998 | 12 FEBRUARY 1999 | |
| Coram: | COMMISSIONER KENNETH MARTIN QC | 31/05/99 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MALCOLM MACLEOD AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION |
Catchwords: | Corporations law Misleading statement Likelihood Future statement Prediction Causation Non expert opinion Ultimate issue rule Admissibility of opinion evidence Accomplice Re-consideration of reasons Ostensible bias Recording of reasons for decision |
Legislation: | Corporations Law |
Case References: | ASC v Nomura International (1998) 29 ACSR 473 Boughey v R (1986) 161 CLR 10 Carroll v Price [1960] VR 651 Davies v DPP [1954] AC 378 Garston v Sullivan (1996) 14 WAR 480 Lam v Beesley (1992) 7 WAR 88 Muscat v Magistrate’s Court and Others (1996) 66 SASR 367 R v Essex Justices, Ex parte Final [1963] 2 QB 816 R v Smith; Ex parte James [1966] SASR 47 R v Wright [1980] VR 593 Samuels v Flavel (1970) SASR 256 Australian National Industries Ltd v Spedley Ltd (In Liquidation) (1992) 26 NSWLR 411 Baptist v Scott [1954] VLR 431 Bond Corp Holdings Ltd v Grace Bros Holdings Ltd (1983) 8 ACLR 61 Burwood Municipal Council v Harvey, unreported, CA NSW; CA40269 of 1993; 3 April 1995 Buttsworth [1983] 1 NSWLR 658 Callaghan v The Queen (1952) 87 CLR 115 Chamberlain v The Queen ) (No 2) (1983) 153 CLR 521 Croft v Peterson, unreported, SCt of Vic; 24 May 1994 Dickason v Edwards (1910) 10 CLR 243 Edwards v R (1992) 173 CLR 653 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Franklun v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1948] AC 87 Freedman v Petty [1981] VR 1001 Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 Gantry Acquisition Corp v Parker & Parsley Petroleum Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 123 ALR 29 Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria v Wood Hall Ltd [1978] VR 385 Georgianni v The Queen (1985) CLR 473 Given v Pryor 24 ALR 442 Goktas v GIO (1993) 31 NSWLR 684 Grassby v R (1989) 168 CLR 1 Haldane v Chegwidden (1986) 41 SASR 546 Hinton v Mill (1991) 57 SASR 97 Humphrey v Wills [1989] VR 439 Kennedy v Sykes (1992-93) 24 ATR 546 Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 Livesey v NSW Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288 Nickelseekers Ltd v Vance [1985] 1 Qd R 266 Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 Pontello v Giannotis (1989) 16 IPR 174 Preston v Carmody (1993) 44 FCR 1 R v Essex Justices; ex parte Perkins [1927] 2 KB 475 R v Kelley; ex parte Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1990) 64 ALJR 485 R v Lilydale Magistrates Court; ex parte Ciccone [1973] VR 122 R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450 R v Thompson Holidays Limited (1974) 1… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Macleod 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 35
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Macleod was the director of a company which had applied to be listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. The application was rejected by the Exchange, and the Australian Securities Commission appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that it had acted unlawfully in doing so. The applicant for the listing had applied to the Tribunal to review the decision of the Exchange, and the Tribunal found that the Exchange had failed to provide a sufficient statement of reasons for its decision. The Tribunal ordered that the application for listing be reconsidered. The Commission appealed against that decision. The applicant cross-appealed against the Tribunal's finding that the Exchange had acted unlawfully. The issues in the case were whether a statement that a company's application for listing would be reconsidered was a future statement, and therefore misleading; whether the Tribunal should have found that the Exchange had acted unlawfully; whether the Tribunal should have taken into account the opinion of a witness who was not an expert; and whether the Tribunal had acted with ostensible bias. The court held that the statement that the application would be reconsidered was not misleading, as it did not amount to a prediction about the future conduct of the Exchange. The court also held that the Tribunal had erred in finding that the Exchange had acted unlawfully, as the Exchange had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court further held that the Tribunal was entitled to take into account the opinion of a non-expert witness, as the opinion was not about the ultimate issue in the case. The court also held that there was no ostensible bias on the part of the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.