Australian Securities Commission v Lee, L. [1995] FCA 505

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

CATCHWORDS COSTS - recovery of costs - application dismissed by consent during course of hearing - no completed hearing as to merits - with limited possible exception evidence upon which parties placed reliance before court - respondent not exhausted right to address court - factors relevant to determination. ASC Law ss 21(3), 38, 70 and 127A Australian Securities Commission v Aust-Home Investments Limited (1993) 44 FCR 194 No. SG 3163 of 1994 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION v LAWRENCE LEE Branson J Adelaide 19 July 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 3163 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION Applicant - and - LAWRENCE LEE Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER CORAM: Branson J PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 19 July 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, are to be taxed and 50% of the sum so fixed is to be paid by the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 3163 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION Applicant - and - LAWRENCE LEE Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION CORAM: Branson J PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 19 July 1995 In this matter the Australian Securities Commission ("the Commission") being satisfied that the respondent had, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with requirements under Part 3 of the ASC Law (other than Division 8) applied to the Court for it to inquire into the case and for an order directing the respondent to comply forthwith with such requirements (see ASC Law s70). The affidavit of Stuart Malcolm Aldous ("Mr Aldous") filed in support of the application exhibited two certificates of the Commission issued in reliance on s70(2) of the ASC Law. Section 70(2) empowers the Commission to certify in writing the failure to comply with a requirement under Pt3 of the ASC Law (other than Div8). The first certificate referred to a failure by the respondent to comply with a requirement made pursuant to s38 of the ASC Law on 9 December 1994. The second certificate referred to a failure by the respondent to comply with a requirement of an inspector made pursuant to s21(3) of the ASC Law on 15 December 1994.

Read full text →

Official source

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.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

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.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 3163 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION Applicant - and - LAWRENCE LEE Respondent MINUTES OF ORDER CORAM: Branson J PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 19 July 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's costs of the proceedings, including reserved costs, are to be taxed and 50% of the sum so fixed is to be paid by the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) ) SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY) No. SG 3163 of 1994 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION Applicant - and - LAWRENCE LEE Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION CORAM: Branson J PLACE: Adelaide DATE: 19 July 1995 In this matter the Australian Securities Commission ("the Commission") being satisfied that the respondent had, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with requirements under Part 3 of the ASC Law (other than Division 8) applied to the Court for it to inquire into the case and for an order directing the respondent to comply forthwith with such requirements (see ASC Law s70). The affidavit of Stuart Malcolm Aldous ("Mr Aldous") filed in support of the application exhibited two certificates of the Commission issued in reliance on s70(2) of the ASC Law. Section 70(2) empowers the Commission to certify in writing the failure to comply with a requirement under Pt3 of the ASC Law (other than Div8). The first certificate referred to a failure by the respondent to comply with a requirement made pursuant to s38 of the ASC Law on 9 December 1994. The second certificate referred to a failure by the respondent to comply with a requirement of an inspector made pursuant to s21(3) of the ASC Law on 15 December 1994.

Read full text →