LexisNexis?
  • world mapWorldwide
  • Contact Us
 

Australia Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2011] FCA 63

by Martha.Ware 3. May 2011 14:22

Facts

This was a first directions hearing for an application by ASIC for the imposition of pecuniary penalties against directors of Storm Financial Limited (“Storm”), Mr and Mrs Cassimatis.  The application involved allegations relating to the conduct of Mr and Mrs Cassimatis as directors of Storm.

 

His Honour stated that he had previously heard an application made by ASIC for the winding up of Storm and, in determining that application, expressed a particular view in respect to a memorandum circulated with a proposed deed of company arrangement: [1-2].

 

The Defendants’ solicitor foreshadowed the making of an application for His Honour to be disqualified from hearing the present application on the basis that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed: [3].

 

Outcome

His Honour agreed that there was a compelling case for him not hearing the present pecuniary penalty proceedings on the basis that authorities set out that there be an abundance of caution that justice be seen to be done: [7-8].

 

Based upon his Honour’s findings and observations necessarily given in hearing the winding up proceedings, His Honour determined that he should not hear nor determine the present proceedings: [8].

 

His Honour was of the opinion that he was not precluded from making any non-controversial procedural orders as a result of his deciding not to hear the present proceedings: [11].

Tags:

Ford's Principles of Corporations Law



Disclaimer

LexisNexis, and the authors and endorsers of this blog each exclude liability for loss suffered by any person resulting in any way from the use of, or reliance on, the content of the blog. Views expressed in blog content are the opinion of the individual writer and do not represent the views of LexisNexis.



Bookmark and Share

Widget Twitter not found.

Root element is missing.X