Re AWB Limited (No 9) - [2009] VSC 485

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:	19 October 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 October 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re AWB Limited (No 9)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 485

---

CORPORATIONS – civil penalty proceedings – trial commenced – applications to amend pleadings to introduce new claims previously refused – application for leave to appeal against decision to refuse application to amend previously dismissed – at commencement of the trial the court informed that ASIC proposes to issue separate proceedings to pursue claims sought to be raised by the amendments previously refused– application by the defendant to direct ASIC issue proceedings so that defendant could seek to have it stayed as an abuse of process or otherwise consider seeking the court to adjourn the further hearing of the trial to be heard with the proposed proceeding – direction that trial be suspended pending hearing and determination of application to stay the proposed proceedings – duty of party proposing further proceedings to inform the defendant and the court as soon as intention reached

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr N J O'Bryan SC with Mr J P Moore, Ms M S Wall and Mr C H Truong	The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
For the Defendant	Mr D G Collins SC with Mr K J A Lyons and Ms M Tittensor	Galbally & O’Bryan Solicitors

Cases cited

Aldi Store Ltd v WSP Group PLC [2008] 1 WLR 749
ASIC v Lindberg [2009] VSCA 235
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
Re AWB Ltd (No 4) [2009] VSC 315
Re AWB Ltd (No 5) [2009] VSC 258
Re AWB Ltd (No 7) [2009] VSC 413
Stuart v Goldberg Linde [2008] 1 WLR 823

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

On 19 October 2009, the trial of this matter was called on for hearing. After appearances were taken, Mr Collins QC senior counsel for Mr Lindberg applied that I require ASIC to commence as soon as possible proceedings they have foreshadowed they intend to issue against Mr Lindberg. Mr Lindberg also seeks that I give directions for the hearing of the application Mr Lindberg will make for those proceedings to be permanently stayed. Mr Collins submits that if Mr Lindberg is successful in staying those proceedings permanently Mr Lindberg can proceed with this trial knowing that he will not be facing a multiplicity of proceedings or a series of trials. Alternatively, Mr Collins submits that if Mr Lindberg is not successful in staying the proposed proceedings permanently, and if the allegations to be made in the proposed proceedings are the allegations which ASIC sought to introduce by amendments to the statement of claim,…

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 9)

Details

AGLC: Re AWB Limited (No 9) [2009] VSC 485
Case: [2009] VSC 485
Decision Date: 26 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re AWB Limited (No 9) involved the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) initiating civil penalty proceedings against AWB Limited, primarily focused on alleged breaches of continuous disclosure obligations. The Federal Court of Australia presided over the case, addressing significant legal issues regarding the admissibility of newly proposed claims at the trial stage. Initially, the court had denied AWB's applications to amend the pleadings to include these new claims, a decision that AWB sought to appeal. During the trial, ASIC disclosed its intention to commence separate proceedings to pursue the claims that were previously denied. AWB then applied to direct ASIC to issue these separate proceedings, seeking to challenge the propriety of these new proceedings as an abuse of process or to request a stay of the trial until the new proceedings were heard. The court responded by suspending the trial pending the determination of AWB's application to stay the proposed separate proceedings.

The court's reasoning focused on the necessity of ensuring procedural fairness and preventing potential abuse of process. It emphasised the importance of notifying the defendant and the court promptly once a decision to initiate separate proceedings was made. The court held that the duty to inform the defendant and the court was crucial to allow for any necessary adjustments to the ongoing trial and to ensure that any subsequent proceedings were conducted in a manner that did not unfairly prejudice the defendant. By directing the suspension of the trial, the court aimed to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and to allow for a comprehensive consideration of AWB's application to stay the proposed separate proceedings. The court's decision underscored the importance of transparency and timely communication in complex litigation involving multiple claims and parties.

Orders