Raber and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Case
•
[2020] AATA 1851
•19 June 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Raber and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2020] AATA 1851
[2020] AATA 1851
19 June 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application by Mr Genna Raber for review of a decision by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to disqualify him from managing corporations for two and a half years, and to refuse him leave to manage a specific company, Myriad Developments Pty Ltd. The disqualification arose from Mr Raber's involvement in the management of three companies that were subsequently wound up and found to be insolvent.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Raber leave under s 206GAB of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to manage Myriad Developments Pty Ltd, notwithstanding his disqualification under s 206F. While Mr Raber no longer contested the disqualification itself, the Tribunal was required to consider the purpose and operation of the legislative scheme, particularly how the discretion to grant leave under s 206GAB should be exercised in light of the objective of s 206F.
The Tribunal reasoned that the power to grant leave under s 206GAB must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purpose of s 206F, which is to prevent directors with a history of corporate insolvency from continuing to manage companies. The Tribunal held that granting leave in this instance would undermine the operation of the disqualification order and potentially allow errant directors to circumvent the legislative intent. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was appropriate to grant Mr Raber permission to manage Myriad Developments Pty Ltd.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant Mr Raber leave under s 206GAB of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to manage Myriad Developments Pty Ltd, notwithstanding his disqualification under s 206F. While Mr Raber no longer contested the disqualification itself, the Tribunal was required to consider the purpose and operation of the legislative scheme, particularly how the discretion to grant leave under s 206GAB should be exercised in light of the objective of s 206F.
The Tribunal reasoned that the power to grant leave under s 206GAB must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purpose of s 206F, which is to prevent directors with a history of corporate insolvency from continuing to manage companies. The Tribunal held that granting leave in this instance would undermine the operation of the disqualification order and potentially allow errant directors to circumvent the legislative intent. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was appropriate to grant Mr Raber permission to manage Myriad Developments Pty Ltd.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Commercial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Jurisdiction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Re Boyle and Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2009] AATA 122
Carey, in the matter of Carey
[2011] FCA 235