ASIC v MICHALIK [2004] NSWSC 909

Reported Decision : 51 ACSR 34

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : ASIC v MICHALIK [2004] NSWSC 909 HEARING DATE(S) : 27/09/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 October 2004

JURISDICTION: Equity Division Corporations List JUDGMENT OF : Barrett J DECISION : Existing disclosure orders stayed for a short time. Directions as to any application to be made by defendants for variation of disclosure orders and s.128 certificate

CATCHWORDS : CORPORATIONS - ASIC investigation - asset freezing orders in place - ancillary asset disclosure orders with exception for self-incriminating disclosures - all such orders by consent - orders require filing of affidavit specifying information in respect of which self-incrimination privilege claimed and grounds for claim - whether such procedure consistent with maintenance of privilege - whether existence of investigation and search warrants causes all required disclosures to be inconsistent with privilege - EVIDENCE - Evidence Act s.128 - whether party filing affidavit in compliance with disclosure order is "witness" - whether consent of such affidavit is "evidence" LEGISLATION CITED : Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss.1323 and 1324 Evidence Act 1995, s.128 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Adler (2001) 38 ACSR 266 Bax v Global (Australia) Pty Ltd v Evans (1999) 47 NSWLR 538 Environmental Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477 CASES CITED : Griffin v Sogelease Australia Ltd (2003) 57 NSWLR 257 Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1 Ross v Internet Wines Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 195 Vasil v National Australia Bank Ltd (1999) 46 NSWLR 207 Australian Securities and Investments Commission - Plaintiff PARTIES : Andrzej Janusz Michalik also known as Andre Tomaszewski and Stanislaw Konstanty Krawczyk - First Defendant Martin Michalik - Second Defendant Kilahim Pty Ltd - Third Defendant FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 4434/04 COUNSEL : Mr D R Stack - Plaintiff Mr B Slowgrove - Defendants SOLICITORS : Australian Securities and Investments Commission - Plaintiff Dennis & Company - Defendants