Jorgensen, Alan Bradley v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [1998] FCA 1736

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VG 3413 of 1998

BETWEEN: alan braDLEY JORGENSEN

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGE: HEEREY J

DATE: 23 DECEMBER 1998

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT I am satisfied there should be a stay in this matter. I take into account the fact that there can be a hearing relatively soon, that is on 3 March 1999. There has already been a substantial lapse of time since the show cause notice was served in February of this year so there is, in the overall scheme of things, not a great deal of extra time taken up. Without going to the detail, I have read the applicant's written submissions filed on 22 December 1998. I am satisfied they raise a number of points of substance (see Faingold v Zammit (1984) 1 FCR 87 at 91, Otter Gold Mines Ltd v Forrest (1997) 22 ACSR 713 at 716). There remain, of course, at this stage arguable points and no more. What Mr Hiland says in opposition may carry the day but I think sufficient has been shown to warrant a stay. I do have regard also to the circumstance that it does not appear to be suggested that any of the conduct alleged against the applicant was of a fraudulent nature. So I will order that the time for service of the applicant's notice of motion is abridged to the day before the date fixed for the motion. I will direct further affidavits by the applicant by 15 January; respondent's affidavits by 15 February, both parties file statements of fact, issues and contentions by 28 February; the matter is fixed for hearing on 3 March, with an estimate of one day; and that the costs of this application are reserved. I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey