RE GENEVA FINANCE LTD (Receiver and Manager Appointed); EX PARTE PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (The Receiver and Manager of GENEVA FINANCE LTD (Receiver and Manager Appointed)) [2001] WASC 302 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASC 302 (S) | |
| Case No: | COR:222/2001 | 12 NOVEMBER 2001 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 6/11/01 | |
| 14/11/01 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Supplementary reason | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (The Receiver and Manager of GENEVA FINANCE LTD (Receiver and Manager Appointed)) ALAN HAROLD BOYS KEVIN ERNEST JUDGE RONALD GEORGE HOWARD ANTHONY HAYES DOUGLAS-BROWN DESMOND FRANK CRAWLEY |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Correction of error in earlier decision |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Boys v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 24 ACSR 1 Re Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Ex Parte Peter Raymond Quigley (The Receiver and Manager of Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed)) [2001] WASC 302 Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DECISION : 14 NOVEMBER 2001 FILE NO/S : COR 222 of 2001 MATTER : GENEVA FINANCE LTD (Receiver and Manager Appointed) (ACN 009 168 147)
EX PARTE
PETER RAYMOND QUIGLEY (The Receiver and Manager of GENEVA FINANCE LTD (Receiver and Manager Appointed))
Plaintiff
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Correction of error in earlier decision
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Supplementary reason
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr K L Christensen
Applicants : Mr J Garas
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Tottle Christensen
Applicants : Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Boys v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 24 ACSR 1
Re Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Ex Parte Peter Raymond Quigley (The Receiver and Manager of Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed)) [2001] WASC 302
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 6 November 2001, I published reasons allowing in part an application by proposed examinees to set aside or vary examination summonses issued against them: see Re Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Ex Parte Peter Raymond Quigley (The Receiver and Manager of Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed)) [2001] WASC 302. In par 10 of those reasons, I referred to an authorisation given to the plaintiff by the ASC, that authorisation subsequently being challenged in the Federal Court in the decision of Boys v Australian Securities Commission (1997) 24 ACSR 1. Prior to the making of orders, counsel for the proposed examinees pointed out that, in fact, the plaintiff applied for the examination summonses pursuant to an authorisation of ASIC dated 3 May 2001, which appears as annexure "PRQ 2" to the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 28 June 2001 and filed in support of this application.
2 In referring to the ASC authorisation I was in error. Nonetheless, the mistake in no way alters my views in relation to the application. Carr J's decision in Boys v Australian Securities Commission (supra) determined that there was no conflict of interest between the plaintiff's position as an agent of the ASC and the receiver manager appointed by the ASC. Nothing has changed. No conflict of interest was established in relation to the authorisation of the plaintiff by the ASC and no conflict of interest has been established in relation to the authorisation by the ASIC.
3 For these reasons, allowing for the error of fact in par 10, my conclusion remains unaltered.
Details
- AGLC
- Re Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) [2001] WASC 302 (S)
- Case
- [2001] WASC 302 (S)
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Geneva Finance Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed); Ex Parte Peter Raymond Quigley involved an application to set aside or vary examination summonses issued against proposed examinees. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and delivered on 6 November 2001 by Master Sanderson. The primary concern was whether the authorisation for the examination summonses issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) was valid and whether there was a conflict of interest given the applicant's dual role as an agent of ASIC and a receiver manager appointed by ASIC.
The court was required to decide if the authorisation by ASIC was legitimate and if there existed a conflict of interest that would invalidate the summonses. The key legal issue was the interpretation of the authorisation issued by ASIC and whether it complied with relevant laws and regulations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's role as both an agent and a receiver manager created a conflict of interest that could undermine the validity of the summonses.
Master Sanderson acknowledged an error in the initial reasons provided, where the authorisation from ASIC was mistakenly referred to as one from the Australian Securities Commission (ASC). Despite this error, the court clarified that it did not affect the overall conclusion. The court referenced the decision in Boys v Australian Securities Commission, which had established that there was no conflict of interest when the applicant held a dual role as an agent and receiver manager. Given that the authorisation by ASIC was valid and no conflict of interest was present, the court upheld its earlier decision.
The final orders were issued to reflect the court's corrected reasons, affirming the allowance of the application in part, while maintaining that the authorisation by ASIC was legitimate and free from conflict of interest.
The court was required to decide if the authorisation by ASIC was legitimate and if there existed a conflict of interest that would invalidate the summonses. The key legal issue was the interpretation of the authorisation issued by ASIC and whether it complied with relevant laws and regulations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applicant's role as both an agent and a receiver manager created a conflict of interest that could undermine the validity of the summonses.
Master Sanderson acknowledged an error in the initial reasons provided, where the authorisation from ASIC was mistakenly referred to as one from the Australian Securities Commission (ASC). Despite this error, the court clarified that it did not affect the overall conclusion. The court referenced the decision in Boys v Australian Securities Commission, which had established that there was no conflict of interest when the applicant held a dual role as an agent and receiver manager. Given that the authorisation by ASIC was valid and no conflict of interest was present, the court upheld its earlier decision.
The final orders were issued to reflect the court's corrected reasons, affirming the allowance of the application in part, while maintaining that the authorisation by ASIC was legitimate and free from conflict of interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.