Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 v IPLUS Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 [2006] FCA 583

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Securities and Investments Commission, in the matter of IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 v IPlus Risk Management Pty Ltd ACN 111 974 719 [2006] FCA 583

IN THE MATTER OF IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 911A OF THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 (CTH) AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION v IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719 and JOHN PIZZEY and MICHAEL JAMES ANDERSEN WAD 37 OF 2006 SIOPIS J 26 APRIL 2006 PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 37 OF 2006

IN THE MATTER OF IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 911A OF THE CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 (CTH)

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Plaintiff

AND: IPLUS RISK MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 111 974 719

First Defendant

JOHN PIZZEY

Second Defendant

MICHAEL JAMES ANDERSEN

Third Defendant

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER: 26 APRIL 2006

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT DECLARES THAT: 1 The first defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that from January 2005 to May 2005 it carried on a financial services business by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 2 The first defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that from January 2005 to May 2005 it carried on a financial services business by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 3 The first defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that it held out in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 4 The first defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in that it held out in its dealing in insurance products, that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 5 The second defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 6 The second defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 7 The second defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 8 The second defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who in dealing in insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 9 The third defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 10 The third defendant contravened s 911A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who carried on a financial services business from January 2005 to May 2005 by dealing in insurance products, without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence covering the provision of those financial services. 11 The third defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in providing financial product advice concerning insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 12 The third defendant contravened s 911C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by being knowingly concerned in the conduct of the first defendant who, in dealing in insurance products, held out that it acted on behalf of another person, namely Lloyds of London, when that was not the case. 13 Each of the contracts of insurance between the first defendant and those persons identified below is void: (i) National Security Systems Pty Ltd (Jarrod Hand); (ii) Roland Bradford; (iii) The Lock Man Security (Sheryl Prandl); (iv) Happy Kids Child Care Centre (Cheryl Scott); (v) The Smart Security Company Pty Ltd (Tom Mathers); (vi) Sherlocks Tavern (David Kendall); and (vii) Gosnells Football and Sportsman Club (Lee Lennon).