Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations v Ponto [2012] FCA 1500

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations v Ponto [2012] FCA 1500 Citation: Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations v Ponto [2012] FCA 1500

Parties: REGISTRAR OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CORPORATIONS v SIMON PONTO, NELSON HALL, WALTER ROGERS, GODFREY BLITNER and DWARKA DASS

File number: NTD 8 of 2011

Judge: REEVES J

Date of judgment: 24 December 2012

Corrigendum: 12 April 2013

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – admissibility of evidence – transcripts of examinations conducted pursuant to s 453-5(1)(c) Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) – where recordings not tendered – where transcripts not authenticated by signature or respondents' testimony – application of s 48(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether transcripts satisfy hearsay exception in s 81 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether transcripts contain admissions CORPORATIONS – whether improper use of position within the meaning of s 265-10 Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) – where management agreement existed with an external company – where that external company controlled the Corporation's bank accounts – where minority of directors did not approve of management agreement – where chairman director sought to appoint a chief executive officer sympathetic to minority position on favourable terms without Board approval – where chairman director and new chief executive officer attempted to access bank accounts of Corporation – whether two other directors who attended the bank but did not participate were "involved in" these contraventions within the meaning of s 694-55 Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) CORPORATIONS – disqualification orders under s 279-15 Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (Cth) – where contravening respondents attempted to circumvent Board process and impose minority views – where general deterrence an important consideration as acts jeopardised Corporation providing essential services – where specific deterrence less important as respondents unlikely to serve as directors or officers again – where no intention to misappropriate funds – where no evidence of bad character or similar previous behaviour COSTS – where applicant successful against two respondents – where only one respondent appeared – where respondent increased cost of hearing by cross-examining many of the witnesses – costs sought against that respondent