Schlaepfer v Australian Securities and Investment Commission

In Schlaepfer v Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the plaintiff sought to have certain interlocutory orders made by the court set aside. The defendant was the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), and the plaintiff was a former employee of a company that was under investigation by ASIC. The plaintiff alleged defamation in relation to comments made by ASIC in its investigation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the appeal heard by the Full Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the orders made by the primary judge were so plainly wrong as to justify intervention by the Full Court. The primary judge had ordered that the plaintiff not make certain comments, and that ASIC be allowed to make certain comments. The plaintiff argued that these orders were wrong in principle, and that they should be set aside. The defendant argued that the orders were not wrong in principle, and that the plaintiff should be bound by them.

The court held that there was no error of principle in the orders made by the primary judge. The court found that the orders were reasonable and proportionate, and that they were necessary to ensure a fair investigation. The court noted that the orders were interlocutory in nature, and that they did not prevent the plaintiff from making his case in the ultimate proceedings. The court held that the orders were not so plainly wrong as to justify intervention by the Full Court.

No further orders were made by the Full Court. The appeal was dismissed.