Re AWB Limited (No 4) - [2009] VSC 315

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT
CORPORATIONS LIST

No. 10078 of 2007

IN THE MATTER OF AWB LIMITED (ACN 081 890 459)

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION	Plaintiff
v
ANDREW ALEXANDER LINDBERG	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 April, 7, 14 and 28 May and 4 June 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re AWB Limited (No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 315

---

CORPORATIONS - Civil penalty proceedings by ASIC – Non-party discovery sought by ASIC – Application to further amend the amended statement of claim – Application to vacate trial date – Relevance of prejudice to defendant in delay – r 32.07 of Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N J O'Bryan SC with Mr P D Crutchfield and Mr C H Truong	The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
For the Defendant	Mr D G Collins SC with Mr G P Mullaly and Ms M Tittensor	Galbally & O’Bryan Solicitors
For AWB Limited	Mr C M Scerri QC with Mr N McAteer	Allens Arthur Robinson

HIS HONOUR:

I have before me three applications:

(a) an application by ASIC for non-party discovery from AWB (made by summons dated 27 March 2009);

(b) an application by ASIC to vacate the orders made on 21 November 2008 that ASIC file witness statements by 1 May 2009 and that the trial be fixed for 13 July 2009, and the ancillary orders (made by interlocutory process dated 22 May 2009); and

(c) an application by Mr Lindberg for orders that, unless ASIC files its witness statement by 12 June 2009, the proceeding be dismissed (made by summons dated 26 May 2009).

If I vacate the trial date as requested by ASIC, I will also have before me an application by ASIC to further amend its amended statement of claim (made by summons dated 1 May 2009).

I have given a history of this proceeding in Re AWB Limited (No 3).[1]There is no need to repeat it here. The latest round of interlocutory applications started with ASIC issuing its summons for non-party discovery from AWB on 27 March 2009. Whilst negotiations were continuing between ASIC and AWB as to the scope of the discovery, I heard and determined ASIC’s application to further amend its amended statement of claim. I refused the amendment on the basis that the amendment would lead to the vacation of the trial date. I understood that the vast bulk of the documents that ASIC sought to obtain on the non-party discovery went to the issues that ASIC proposed to raise in its further amendments to the amended statement of claim. I also understood that the discovery of these documents and their consideration by ASIC and Mr Lindberg would necessarily lead to the trial date being vacated.
[1][2009] VSC 209.

On 21 November 2008, I ordered…

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.

Continue reading Re AWB Limited (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Re AWB Limited (No 4) [2009] VSC 315
Case: [2009] VSC 315
Decision Date: 4 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re AWB Limited (No 4), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) initiated civil penalty proceedings against AWB Limited. The dispute centred on allegations of misconduct in the operations of AWB Limited, and the case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. ASIC sought to amend its statement of claim to include new allegations, as well as to obtain non-party discovery from a third party. AWB Limited opposed both the application to amend the statement of claim and the application for non-party discovery.

The central legal issues before the court involved the discretion to allow ASIC to further amend its statement of claim, the appropriateness of non-party discovery in the context of the case, and the potential prejudice to AWB Limited in the event of delay. The court needed to determine whether the proposed amendments were justified, whether the discovery sought was relevant and necessary, and how any delay in the proceedings might impact AWB Limited.

The court concluded that the proposed amendments to the statement of claim were necessary to ensure that ASIC could fully and fairly present its case. The amendments were deemed relevant and not an abuse of process. Regarding the non-party discovery, the court found that the information sought was necessary for ASIC to establish its case and was therefore granted. The court also considered the potential prejudice to AWB Limited but determined that the need for a fair and thorough investigation outweighed the potential prejudice caused by the delay. Ultimately, the court allowed the amendment to the statement of claim and the application for non-party discovery. The court did not vacate the trial date, finding that the prejudice to AWB Limited was not sufficient to warrant such a course of action.

Orders