Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Waters v Mercedes Holdings Pty Limited [2012] FCAFC 80 Citation: Waters v Mercedes Holdings Pty Limited [2012] FCAFC 80
Appeal from: Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 5) [2011] FCA 1428
Parties: ANDREA JANE WATERS AND OTHERS NAMED IN SCHEDULE A TO THE AMENDED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL v MERCEDES HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED AND OTHERS
File number: NSD 39 of 2012
Judges: JACOBSON, FLICK AND FOSTER JJ
Date of judgment: 31 May 2012
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS LAW – managed investment scheme – financial benefit to a related entity – whether onus of proof of an exception within the meaning of s 208(1)(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as modified by s 601LC rests on the party alleging a contravention of s 208 or on the party relying upon the exception – onus lies on those claiming to fall within an exception PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal –issue of importance to conduct of proceeding – issue of importance generally – leave granted
Legislation: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 13 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 103, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 253E, 601EA, 601FC, 601HA, 601HG, 601LA, 601LB, 601LC, 601LD, 601LE, Federal Court of Australia Act 1974 (Cth) ss 24(1A), 37M Corporations Law (NSW) s 243ZE
Cases cited: ASIC v Forge [2002] NSWSC 760, considered Australian Securities Commission v Marlborough Gold Mines Limited (1993) 177 CLR 485, cited Australian Securities and Investments Commission v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 123, 169 FCR 227, cited Avel Proprietary Limited v Multicoin Amusements Proprietary Limited (1990) 171 CLR 88, applied Cabcharge Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2010] FCAFC 111, cited Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136, cited Forge v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] NSWCA 448, 213 ALR 574, considered Leawell Pty Ltd v Watershed Premium Wines Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1145, 180 FCR 392, not followed Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 2) [2010] FCA 472, 186 FCR 450, considered Mercedes Holdings Pty Ltd v Waters (No 5) [2011] FCA 1428, affirmed Orrong Strategies Pty Ltd v Village Roadshow Ltd [2007] VSC 1 207 FLR 245, considered Rawson Finances Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2010] FCAFC 139, cited Sentry Corporation v Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co (A Firm) (1990) 24 FCR 463, cited Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCAFC 125, 144 FCR 379, cited Sharp v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (NSW) (1988) 19 ATR 908, 88 ATC 4184, cited Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512, applied Wesfarmers Premier Coal Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (No 3) [2005] FCA 40, 138 IR 394, cited C R Williams, 'Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation' (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 165, cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate