Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Huntley Management Limited [2017] FCA 770 File number(s): NSD 1633 of 2016
Judge(s): PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 11 July 2017
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – false or misleading representations in connection with financial services – false or misleading representation that services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, uses or benefits – where Defendant admitted contravention of s 12DB(1)(e) of Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) – where Defendant made false or misleading representation that ASIC had approved managed investment projects of which Defendant was acting as responsible entity, when, in fact, ASIC had not done so – declaratory relief and pecuniary penalty sought for conduct in contravention of s 12DB(1)(e) – where penalty agreed – factors relevant to assessment of pecuniary penalty – assessment of penalty
Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DB, 12DB(1)(e), 12GBA, 12GBA(2), 12GBA(3), 12GD(1), 12GLA Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 761A Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Act 2015 (Cth) Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) s 26.5
Cases cited: Annand & Thompson Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 36; (1979) 40 FLR 165 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 450; (1997) 145 ALR 36 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology [2012] FCAFC 56; (2012) 201 FCR 378 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v MSY Technology Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2011] FCA 382; (2011) 279 ALR 609 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Australian Lending Centre Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2012] FCA 43; (2012) 213 FCR 380 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Superannuation Warehouse Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1167; (2015) 109 ACSR 199 Commonwealth v Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 326 ALR 476 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Cahill [2010] FCAFC 39; (2010) 269 ALR 1 Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2012] FCAFC 20; (2012) 287 ALR 249
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