Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2007] FCA 2098
Banking Act 1959 (Cth) ss 7, 11, 65A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 23, 57(1) Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 6) [2007] FCA 1608 cited Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation (1996) 67 FCR 65 followed DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON v AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY VID 992 OF 2007
GRAY J
10 DECEMBER 2007
MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 992 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON
Appellant
AND: AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
Respondent
JUDGE: GRAY J DATE OF ORDER: 10 DECEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The motions, the subject of the notice of motion filed on 21 November 2007, be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the motions. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 992 OF 2007
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN: DAVID ROBERT SIMINTON
Appellant
AND: AUSTRALIAN PRUDENTIAL REGULATION AUTHORITY
Respondent
JUDGE: GRAY J
DATE: 10 DECEMBER 2007
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 26 October 2007, Tracey J delivered judgment in proceeding number VID 1607 of 2005. The judgment is published under the designation Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 6) [2007] FCA 1608. In the proceeding in which that judgment was given, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority ("APRA") sought, among other things, relief by way of a permanent injunction against the respondent, Mr Siminton, pursuant to s 65A of the Banking Act 1959 (Cth) ("the Banking Act"). Section 65A provides that the Court may grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct, or requiring the person to do a particular act or thing, in such terms as the Court thinks appropriate, if there is a contravention or threatened contravention of the Act. 2 The particular provision to which attention was directed in that proceeding was s 7 of the Banking Act, which effectively prohibits carrying on the business of banking without a licence. Tracey J was satisfied that Mr Siminton had collected money by way of deposits from members of the public, as a result of his solicitation of those deposits, and had promised returns at a very high level, 40 or 50 per cent, described as a "profit share", rather than interest. His Honour was satisfied that Mr Siminton did not fall within s 11 of the Banking Act, which would have entitled him to carry on banking business and that, therefore, he was in contravention of s 7. A significant part of his Honour's findings about the carrying on of the business of banking related to the proposition that Mr Siminton had lent money, in the sum of $100,000, from the moneys deposited with him, to an institution called Technocash, and had promised those from whom he solicited funds that moneys would be available for loans in the future. 3 In determining what relief should be granted, his Honour decided to make permanent some injunctions that had previously been granted on an interlocutory basis. At [72]-[75] of his reasons for judgment, his Honour also proposed that the case would be one appropriate for the appointment of a receiver, under either s 57(1) or s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). His Honour invited submissions from the parties on a subsequent date, 7 November 2007, in relation to the terms of appropriate orders and any additional relief. Submissions were made. On 7 November 2007, his Honour made an order that included an order appointing a receiver to give effect to the judgment and orders of the Court in proceeding number VID 1607 of 2005, by ensuring that moneys, which the Court had found to have been received by Mr Siminton in contravention of the Banking Act, were returned to depositors. The order recited that the Court had found that the Terra Nova Cache that was established by Mr Siminton was a bank, operating in conjunction with an entity called the Principality of Camside, and that members of the public were encouraged to make deposits in Terra Nova Cache in return for promised high interest payments. 4 The order appointing the receiver is some 19 paragraphs long, including a reservation of liberty to apply. It is unnecessary for present purposes to recite all of the provisions of the order, but it is necessary to refer to some specific provisions. In para 4, the Court ordered that: The receiver shall have the following powers: (a) The power to do, in Australia and elsewhere, all things necessary and convenient to be done for or in connection with, or as incidental to, the attainment of the objectives of these orders; (b) The power to require, by request in writing, that Mr Siminton and any other person who has provided banking or financial services to Mr Siminton the Terra Nova Cache and or the Principality of Camside provide such reasonable assistance to the receiver as required from time to time; and (c) The power to deal with the Funds in such manner as he thinks most beneficial to ensure compliance with the orders made by this Court. 5 In para 5, the Court ordered that: On or before 21 November 2007, Mr Siminton provide to the receiver all bank statements, books of account, receipts, invoices, correspondence or any other document in his possession, custody, power or control relating to monies received from members of the public for deposit in the Terra Nova Cache. 6 In para 17 of the order, there appears the following provision: The following additional orders shall apply in relation to the receiver: (a) the receiver shall be entitled to reasonable remuneration and reasonable costs and expenses properly incurred in the performance of his duties and the exercise of his powers as receiver to be calculated on the basis of the time reasonably spent by the receiver, his partners and staff in accordance with the scale of fees provided to the Registrar, such fees to be paid out of the Funds as a first charge; and
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.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
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.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate