Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd; In the Matter of Whitebox Trading Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 429 File number: NSD 383 of 2016
Judge: FOSTER J
Date of judgment: 27 April 2017
Catchwords: PRIVILEGE – penalty privilege – whether, by reason of the second defendant being a natural person and being entitled to claim penalty privilege in a proceeding brought by the corporate regulator, Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), against him and also against the first defendant, a corporation, for pecuniary penalties, the Court is prohibited from ordering both defendants to notify their objections to ASIC's witnesses' evidence and to its documentary tenders six weeks before the commencement of the relevant hearing
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 180(1), 1041A, 1041B, 1101B, 1317E, 1317G Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 21, s 23 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 45, s 76
Cases cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Ltd (1999) 163 ALR 465 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v FFE Building Services Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 37 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vines (2003) 176 FLR 106 MacDonald v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2007) 73 NSWLR 612 Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129 Sidebottom v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (2003) 6 VR 302
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