Sharples v Australian Securities and Investment Commission

[2005] FCA 1732

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SHARPLES v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION

[2005] FCA 1732

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for reinstatement of the registration of a company – section 601AH of the Corporations Act 2001.

Corporations Act 2001

SHARPLES v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION

QUD444 OF 2005

GREENWOOD J
25 NOVEMBER 2005

BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD444 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION (ABN 86 768 265 615) RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE OF ORDER:	25 NOVEMBER 2005
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Order that the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”) reinstate the registration of Catalyst Newspaper Pty Ltd ACN 088 944 218.

2.Direct the Applicant serve a copy of the Order of Reinstatement upon the respondent.

3.The respondent has liberty to apply.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QUD444 OF 2005

BETWEEN:	TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT COMMISSION (ABN 86 768 265 615) RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GREENWOOD J
DATE:	25 NOVEMBER 2005
PLACE:	BRISBANE

EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DELIVERED AT 2.20PM

1. I have before me an application by Terry Patrick Sharples for an Order pursuant to section 601AH(2) of the Corporations Act 2001. That provision enables the court to make an order directing the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (“ASIC”) to reinstate the registration of a company, if the application is made by “a person aggrieved by the deregistration”, and the court is satisfied that “it is just that the company's registration be reinstated”.

2. The company in question is a company called Catalyst Newspaper Pty Ltd, and the circumstances in relation to that company are reflected in Mr Sharples' affidavit sworn and filed on 4 November 2005.  The particular circumstances concerning that company are reflected at paragraph 3 of Mr Sharples’ affidavit, and I will not repeat them here.  Mr Sharples is the applicant in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia, No. QUD/390 of 2005, in which Mr Sharples seeks damages for defamation, damages for misleading conduct, and other relief in relation to the conduct of the respondents in that proceeding.

3. A part of that conduct is said to be arrangements in relation to the publication of a newspaper published by Catalyst Newspapers Pty Ltd in which an article, which is defamatory, or alleged to be defamatory, of Mr Sharples, is published.  The application for reinstatement is made on the basis that in order to enable those proceedings to take their course in a proper way, the company needs to be reinstated.

4. Accordingly, having regard to the material read by Mr Sharples, I am satisfied that Mr Sharples is “a person aggrieved by the deregistration”, and that it is “just” that the company's reinstatement be directed.   Accordingly, I propose to make an order that the Australian Securities and Investment Commission reinstate the registration of Catalyst Newspaper Pty Ltd, ACN 088 944 218.  The Commission advised the Court by letter that it would not appear and did not oppose an order of reinstatement

5. I think what I should also do is direct that Mr Sharples serve a copy of the Order of reinstatement upon ASIC, and it is probably necessary, I think, having regard to some of the provisions, and, in particular, section 601AH(5) dealing with the effect of reinstatement, that I should give liberty or leave to apply to ASIC in relation to any matter that may arise from reinstatement.

6. Otherwise, they are the Orders. 

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Greenwood.

Associate:

Dated:             25 November 2005

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Sharples, self-represented
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Sharples, self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Not Applicable
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Not Applicable
Date of Hearing:	25 November 2005
Date of Judgment:	25 November 2005