Boys, Alan Harold & Ors v Australian Securities Commission & Ors [1998] FCA 1

Boys, Alan Harold & Ors v Australian Securities Commission & Ors [1998] FCA 1

The ASC's investigation and appointment of consultants, as well as the release to them of information obtained under statutory examination, were lawful and within power, given the existence of reasonable suspicion of contravention and in the absence of any established improper purpose or unmanaged conflict of interest. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and procedural fairness was observed.

Parties
Appellants: Alan Harold Boys, Ronald George Howard, Desmond Frank Crawley, Anthony Hayes Douglas-Brown, Anthony Howard Leibowitz; First Respondent: Australian Securities Commission; Second Respondent: Ernst & Young (A Firm); Third Respondent: Phillips Fox (A Firm); Fourth Respondent: Peter Reymond Quigley; Fifth Respondent: Kevin Lee Christensen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Single Judge (carr J) of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver as Consultant to the ASC, Improper Purpose in Administrative Action, Conflicts of Interest, Disclosure and Use of Information Obtained Under Statutory Investigation, Procedural Fairness and Apprehension of Bias, Statutory Interpretation of ASC Law Provisions, Release of Statutory Examination Material for Civil Litigation
Corporations Law Administrative Law Appointment of Receiver as Consultant to the ASC Improper Purpose in Administrative Action Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Use of Information Obtained Under Statutory Investigation Procedural Fairness and Apprehension of Bias Statutory Interpretation of ASC Law Provisions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Harold Boys, Ronald George Howard, Desmond Frank Crawley, Anthony Hayes Douglas-Brown, Anthony Howard Leibowitz

Appellants

Australian Securities Commission

First Respondent

Ernst & Young (A Firm)

Second Respondent

Phillips Fox (A Firm)

Third Respondent

Peter Reymond Quigley

Fourth Respondent

Kevin Lee Christensen

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Single Judge (carr J) of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ASC acted with an improper purpose in its investigation concerning Geneva Finance Limited
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a receiver and his solicitor as consultants to the ASC was invalid due to conflict of interest
  3. 3 Whether the use and disclosure of information obtained under statutory examination to the receiver for civil proceedings was permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The ASC's investigation and appointment of consultants, as well as the release to them of information obtained under statutory examination, were lawful and within power, given the existence of reasonable suspicion of contravention and in the absence of any established improper purpose or unmanaged conflict of interest. There was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and procedural fairness was observed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.