Trezona v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] FCA 1389

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Trezona v Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2004] FCA 1389

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review – decision not to defer hearing in relation to claims against second applicant's security deposit – banning order appeal by first applicant due to be heard in Administrative Appeals Tribunal – applicants wishing to delay security deposit hearing until after cross-examination of claimants in banning order appeal – whether refusal of adjournment procedural not substantive Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5, 6, 11 Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 51, 59(8) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 786, 830 Corporations Law (Cth) s 784 Corporations Regulations reg 7.3.04 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 applied Australian Postal Commission v Hayes (1989) 23 FCR 320 cited Beale v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1998) 82 FCR 132 cited Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Beddoe (1996) 68 FCR 446 considered Geographical Indications Committee v O'Connor (2000) 64 ALD 325 cited Romeo v Asher (1991) 29 FCR 343 considered KEVIN ALAN TREZONA and INVESTMENT PLANNERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD v AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION W91 of 2004 RD NICHOLSON J 29 OCTOBER 2004 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY W91 OF 2004

BETWEEN: KEVIN ALAN TREZONA

FIRST APPLICANT

INVESTMENT PLANNERS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: RD NICHOLSON J

DATE OF ORDER: 29 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for review be dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.