Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] FCA 763

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] FCA 763 AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v SAXBY BRIDGE FINANCIAL PLANNING PTY LTD (ACN 073 888 979), ABS SECURITIES PTY LTD (ACN 081 560 349) & JEFFREY JOSEPH BRAYSICH N756 OF 2003 BENNETT J 23 JULY 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N756 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A DEPUTY PRESIDENT

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: SAXBY BRIDGE FINANCIAL PLANNING PTY LTD

(ACN 073 888 979)

FIRST RESPONDENT

ABS SECURITIES PTY LTD

(ACN 081 560 349)

SECOND RESPONDENT

JEFFREY JOSEPH BRAYSICH

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER: 23 JULY 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1 The notice of motion be dismissed. 2 The costs of the motion be costs in the cause.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N756 OF 2003

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A DEPUTY PRESIDENT

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

APPLICANT

AND: SAXBY BRIDGE FINANCIAL PLANNING PTY LTD

(ACN 073 888 979)

FIRST RESPONDENT

ABS SECURITIES PTY LTD

(ACN 081 560 349)

SECOND RESPONDENT

JEFFREY JOSEPH BRAYSICH

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: BENNETT J

DATE: 23 JULY 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal from a decision of a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the Tribunal') pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('the AAT Act'). By notice of motion filed with the notice of appeal, the applicant ('ASIC') seeks orders that the decision of the Tribunal be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal and expedition of the hearing. 2 The matter came before me for directions at which time the notice of motion was heard with respect to the application for a stay. There had not been a determination in accordance with s 44(3) of the AAT Act but, by reason of s 44A of the AAT Act and Order 53 Rule 9, I have jurisdiction to hear the application. 3 I note that s 44A(1) of the AAT Act provides that the institution of an appeal to this Court does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision. By s 44A(2), the relevant considerations in making an order for a stay are those 'appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the appeal'.