Sasso and Australian Securities & Investments Commission

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) had banned Mr. Sasso from providing financial services for five years. Mr. Sasso applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a stay of this decision and for confidentiality orders regarding the proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the AAT had the discretion to grant a stay and confidentiality orders, and if so, whether the circumstances warranted their imposition.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether its discretion was enlivened to grant a stay of ASIC's decision, and if so, whether a stay was desirable to secure the effectiveness of the hearing. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether grounds for confidentiality orders were made out, considering the presumption of openness and transparency in proceedings. Mr. Sasso argued that the consequences for himself and third parties, including reputational damage and financial hardship, justified these orders.

The Tribunal considered that while a ground to enliven the discretion to grant a stay existed, it was not satisfied that a stay should be granted. The Tribunal placed paramount importance on public interest considerations, particularly the general deterrence purpose of such regulatory actions. It found that Mr. Sasso's reputational and financial interests alone did not outweigh the global public interest in ensuring the public has sufficient information to make informed decisions and that the Regulator can meet its statutory objectives. Regarding confidentiality, the Tribunal noted the strong presumption in favour of public hearings and the disclosure of evidence, requiring proper and cogent reasons to depart from this principle. It found that reputational damage and financial hardship were not sufficient grounds to justify confidentiality orders.

Consequently, the applications for both a stay of the decision and for confidentiality orders were refused.