Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2021] FCAFC 59 Appeal from: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1263
File number: NSD 1092 of 2020
Judgment of: MARKOVIC, BANKS-SMITH AND ABRAHAM JJ
Date of judgment: 23 April 2021
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – appeal from the order of the primary judge under s 70(3) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2002 (Cth) that the appellant be required to comply with a notice to produce documents – where the primary judge found the appellant was in possession of documents for the purpose of production pursuant to the notice – where the documents were held by third party service providers – where the primary judge found the appellant lacked a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice – whether the primary judge gave adequate consideration to the lack of cooperation by the third party service providers – whether the primary judge was compelled to accept certain documentary evidence in circumstances where it was not contradicted – whether the primary judge erred in finding it was necessary to lead evidence from the director of the appellant – whether the primary judge took irrelevant matters into account – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2002 (Cth) ss 33, 70 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1323
Cases cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1263 Aldi Foods Pty Ltd v Moroccanoil Israel Ltd [2018] FCAFC 93; (2018) 261 FCR 301 Comptroller-General of Customs v Zappia [2018] HCA 54; (2018) 265 CLR 416 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1979) 143 CLR 499 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Integrated Financial Group Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] WASC 75; (2004) 183 FLR 8 Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; (2019) 266 CLR 129 Reyes v United States of America [2020] FCAFC 149 Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979)142 CLR 531
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